Administrative Tribunals: Types, Roles, and Case laws

The Author, Yash Gupta is a 3rd Year Law student at NMIMS Banglore. He is currently interning with LatestLaws.com

INTRODUCTION

Tribunals are quasi-judicial entities established to address matters such as resolving tax or administrative disputes. It performs many functions such as dispute resolution, determination of rights between conflicting parties, issuance of administrative rulings, review of previously issued administrative rulings, and other activities.

The term ‘Tribunes,’ denoting the ‘Magistrates of the Classical Roman Republic,’ serves as the etymological origin for the term ‘Tribunal.’ The term ‘trial’ pertains to the position of the ‘Tribunes,’ a Roman official who safeguards the citizens from the arbitrary conduct of aristocratic magistrates in both monarchy and republic. In broad terms, a tribunal refers to any entity or person with the authority to make decisions, pass judgments, or resolve claims or conflicts, irrespective of whether they are explicitly labelled as a tribunal.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Administrative tribunals are specialized governmental organizations established by federal or provincial law to accomplish legislative goals. Legislation grants some public boards and decision-makers the power to make decisions. Administrative tribunals, boards, and other decision-makers are vested with these powers to expedite the resolution of certain disputes or situations in a less formal and sometimes more cost-effective manner than the courts. Administrative tribunals provide a forum for adjudicators who possess specific expertise in a particular field to make rulings on complex issues.[2]

In the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. P.N. Sharma[3], the Supreme Court determined that a Tribunal may possess certain characteristics of a court, but not all of them. An administrative tribunal is an intermediary institution that operates between the judiciary and administrative branches, serving a functional role.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh[4], offered the further elucidation of a tribunal: In Article 136[5], the phrase tribunal does not have the same meaning as a court. Instead, it includes all bodies that have the power to make judgments, as long as they are constituted by a state and possess judicial authority, rather than administrative or executive authority.

Need for Administrative Tribunals

• The Tribunals, which encompass both domestic and other tribunals, have been established under several legislation to resolve the backlog of cases in various courts.
• The establishment of the Tribunals aimed to alleviate the workload of courts, expedite the process of making verdicts, and provide a forum staffed by lawyers and specialists in the relevant fields that the Tribunal is capable of handling.
• Tribunals have a crucial and specialized role in the legal system. They alleviate a portion of the court's already burdensome caseload. They see disputes about taxation, the armed forces, the environment, and administrative affairs.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

The distinguishing features of administrative tribunals, which differentiate them from conventional courts, can be summarized as follows:

1. Administrative tribunals must be created by the enactment of law, indicating that they must have a legal origin.
2. They are required to possess certain, but not all, attributes of conventional courts.
3. An administrative tribunal must exercise judicial functions in all circumstances and performs both quasi-judicial and judicial responsibilities.
4. Stringent rules of evidence and process are not adhered to.
5. Administrative courts are autonomous and immune to administrative interference when carrying out judicial or quasi-judicial tasks.
6. An administrative tribunal possesses equivalent legal jurisdiction to a court in procedural matters, encompassing the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, and demand the submission of documents.
7. These tribunals are required to adhere to the notion of natural justice.
8. Administrative tribunals require an impartial, open, and equitable approach in order to fulfil their essential purpose.
9. The prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition can be utilized to challenge administrative tribunal judgments.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was enacted by Parliament in line with Article 323A[6], which encompasses all matters falling within clause (1) of Article 323A. This legislation grants the federal government the authority to establish administrative tribunals for federal services, state services, municipal bodies, and other entities, such as public businesses, upon request from the states. According to Article 136[7], all courts, except the Supreme Court, lose their authority to handle cases that come under the jurisdiction of the tribunals from the moment the tribunals are established.[8]

A tribunal consists of a chairman, an appropriate number of vice-chairmen, and other members as determined by the government. The President is responsible for appointing Central Tribunals, whereas for State or Joint Tribunals, the President appoints them after conferring with the Governors. The Act specifies the obligations for such matter.[9] Further subjects related to administrative tribunals are addressed under other names and subheadings.

India has established many Tribunals to address certain circumstances. Here are few examples of these tribunals:

The National Green Tribunal was formed under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010. The primary objective of the NGT's endeavours is the preservation and safeguarding of the environment.

The functions of the Water Disputes Tribunal are governed by the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act of 1956. The main focus is on disputes about the allocation of river water that traverses state borders.

The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 established the existence of administrative tribunals. They address matters related to public services as outlined in Article 323A[10] of the Constitution.

The establishment of the Armed Forces Tribunal followed the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act of 2007. It deals with issues related to the military.

These are only a handful of examples of the Indian tribunals that have been established, each with a unique purpose and jurisdiction. These tribunals enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the legal system by providing an alternative platform for resolving certain matters.

Difference Between Courts and Tribunals

The difference between administrative tribunals and Courts are as follows -

1. The basic ideas behind Tribunals and Courts  - India's hierarchical judicial system comprises district courts, session courts, Lok Adalat’s, consumer courts or forums, high courts, and the Supreme Court. However, due to the large number of unresolved cases, some of which have been ongoing for several years, it is imperative to establish specialized tribunals to ensure efficient and systematic handling of these matters. These tribunals, which are exclusive to individual state government agencies, address internal disagreements inside the departments.
2. The difference in meaning of Courts and Administrative Tribunals - Courts are comprehensive judicial institutions with a lengthy history of functioning. Tribunals, being statutory entities with judicial powers, nonetheless carry out their historic duties. While all courts are tribunals, it is important to note that not all tribunals are courts. The primary objective behind the establishment of the tribunals was to alleviate the burden on the courts.
3. Nature - Tribunals are enduring institutions comprising a group of adjudicators whose responsibility is to provide fair judgments to the aggrieved parties, similar to courts. Unlike court processes, tribunal proceedings are characterized by their informality and rationality. Courts are obligated to adhere to regulations and standards of conduct, and their conduct is closely examined by superior courts. Tribunals, however, are characterized by a more informal and adaptable nature. Tribunal adjudicators are often selected from inside the pertinent department or organization. The Central Administrative Tribunal, established under the provisions of Article 323A[11] of the Indian Constitution, adjudicates disputes and complaints related to recruitment procedures and working conditions in public sector posts.
4. Power and functions - Courts has the authority to ascertain the legality of legislation and are limited to carrying out judicial functions alone. Typically, their decisions are predicated on the facts presented in court rather than on carrying out investigative duties. Judicial decisions are impartial and primarily grounded in factual records and substantiating evidence. Courts are presided over by officers who possess substantial legal expertise.
5. Technical Differences  - Court judges listen to arguments from all parties and utilize their expertise to resolve disputes based on factual evidence, precise details, and corroborating records. The adjudicators in tribunals are highly knowledgeable in their specific areas of expertise. A customs officer with department-specific competence constitutes a customs tribunal, which is more specialized than judges in a courtroom. Tribunals decentralize judicial authority as a consequence.
6. Jurisdiction - Tribunals have jurisdiction limited to departmental affairs within a specific geographic area, however their power extends beyond that. Their jurisdiction is confined to matters that are directly linked to a certain department. In contrast, courts possess extensive jurisdiction over a diverse array of concerns, encompassing criminal, civil, familial, corporate, and business issues.

ADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Administrative tribunals were established due to their inherent benefits over conventional courts. Here are a few of them:

1. Flexibility - The formation of administrative tribunals enhanced the adaptability and versatility of the Indian legal system. Unlike the rigid and inflexible procedures of conventional courts, administrative tribunals adhere to a more informal and flexible approach.
2. Expedited Justice: The main objective of the administrative tribunal is to deliver swift and excellent justice. Resolving the difficulties promptly and efficiently is straightforward due to the uncomplicated nature of the approach.
3. More cost-effective: Administrative Tribunals offer a quicker resolution of problems compared to normal courts. The expenses are consequently reduced. Nevertheless, the conventional judicial system is cumbersome and sluggish, resulting in increased costs associated with legal proceedings. Consequently, administrative tribunals are more cost-effective compared to conventional courts.
4. Efficiency and Excellence in Justice: In light of the present circumstances, administrative tribunals provide the optimal means of expeditiously providing satisfactory and superior justice.
5. The administrative adjudication system has alleviated the burden on conventional courts by reducing the backlog of cases.

DRAWBACKS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Although administrative tribunals play a crucial role in the well-being of modern society, they suffer from several deficiencies. The establishment of administrative courts clearly undermines the principle of the rule of law.

1. The concept of the rule of law aimed to maintain equal treatment under the law and prioritize the authority of common law above the arbitrary actions of governmental authority. Administrative tribunals, in different locations, restrict the implementation of the law by adopting distinct regulations and procedures for certain circumstances.
2. Lack of a prescribed procedure: The administrative adjudicatory bodies operate without a rigid framework of norms or protocols. Hence, there is a potential for the violation of the norm of natural justice.
3. Lack of capacity to anticipate forthcoming judgments: Anticipating future outcomes is impossible due to the lack of adherence to precedents by administrative tribunals.
4. The extent of arbitrariness: As stated in the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the civil and criminal courts function according to a uniform set of rules and regulations. Nevertheless, the administrative tribunals do not adhere to such stringent protocols. They have the freedom to establish their own protocols, which might result in these tribunals functioning in an arbitrary manner.
5. Absence of legal expertise: Administrative tribunal members are not obliged to possess a legal education or experience. While they may possess expertise in other fields, they may not possess the formal education or training in the legal system. Consequently, they lacked the requisite legal expertise, which is vital for resolving disputes.

Judicial Precedents

Section 28[12] of the Administrative Tribunals Act, enacted in 1985 under Article 323A[13], explicitly excluded all courts from having jurisdiction, save for the Supreme Court, which was granted power under Article 136[14]. Consequently, there was a significant surge in the number of cases challenging the legitimacy of both the aforementioned statutes and the 42nd Amendment, which introduced Articles 323A and 323B to the constitution. Below, we will discuss many noteworthy examples in this field.

S.P.Sampath Kumar v. Union of India[15]

This is the first case that has caught the attention of the judiciary in this area, and it may also be the most significant case of the current period. The Constitution Bench focused particularly on assessing the legality of Section 28 of the Act in the case of Sampath Kumar. This clause was being contested on the basis that it inhibits judicial review, which is seen as a fundamental element of the constitution. Without a question, the Supreme Court acknowledged that judicial review is a crucial component of the system. The Court recognized that the introduction of other institutional procedures, equally efficient as the High Courts, would not violate the fundamental structure. The Act acknowledged that the administrative tribunals were operating as alternatives to the High Courts. This result proved to be a hindrance for advocates of tribunalization. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court vehemently criticized the methods used to choose the Chairman of the Tribunal. An individual with prior experience as the Secretary to the Government of India, or in a comparable position, may take on the duties of the Chairman as outlined in Section 6(1)(c) of the Act. Bureaucrats are barred from occupying positions in Tribunals, as these institutions were specifically created to serve as replacements for the High Courts.

It was concluded that this clause was invalid and without legal effect as a result. The Chairman must be a former or soon-to-be departing Chief Justice of the High Court. The appointment of the remaining members must be conducted by a committee including a sitting Supreme Court justice. Moreover, it was advised to seek the consultation of the Indian Chief Justice before making any nominations. The ideas have been approved by the Parliament and subsequently integrated into the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act of 1986.

Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[16]

In this specific instance, it was found that the insertion of Article 371D (5) in the Constitution (32nd Amendment) Act, 1973 was considered unconstitutional and illegal. This clause grants the Andhra Pradesh government the authority to alter or invalidate any decision made by the state's administrative tribunal. It was noted that this form of regulation violated the fundamental framework by reducing the tribunal's capacity to carry out judicial review in comparison to the High Court. In this instance, the Court appears to be closely following the ruling in the Sampath Kumar case, which said that administrative tribunals should operate as effective replacements for the High Court.

J.B.Chopra v. Union of India[17]

The decision was made to grant the Administrative tribunals the power of judicial review, which encompasses the jurisdiction to assess the constitutionality of service regulations. This is because these tribunals are designed to function as substitutes for the High Court.

However, there occurs a sudden shift in the pattern that leads to significant ambiguity.

In the case of M.B. Majumdar v. Union of India[18], the Supreme Court refused to provide the members of Special Tribunals the same benefits and conditions of employment as normal High Court judges. In R.K. Jain v. Union of India[19], the Supreme Court ruled that these Tribunals could not serve as efficient substitutes for High Courts, as stated in Articles 226[20] and 227[21].

Moreover, the supreme court issues a clear and unambiguous statement expressing its unhappiness with the efficacy and operation of Administrative Tribunals, particularly with respect to their authority for judicial review.

Sakinala Harinath v. State of Andhra Pradesh[22]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court raised significant issues about the judgment of the learned Judges in the matter of Sampath Kumar. The Full Bench ruled that the decision in the mentioned case, which considered the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals under Articles 226[23] and 227[24] to be equal to that of the High courts, contradicted the Supreme Court's rulings in cases like Kesavanda Bharati v. State of Kerala[25] and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain[26]. The focus was placed on the fact that the constitutional courts were restricted to using their judicial review power. The alternative institutional structure proposed in Sampath Kumar's case is deemed unlawful as it does not align with the existing plan. As a result, Section 28 of the Act and Article 323A(d) were deemed illegal.

The initial endorsement of tribunalization in the Sampath Kumar case seems to be diminishing over time as a result of subsequent court decisions. The conflicting judgments resulted in a state of ambiguity, necessitating a reassessment of the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar. The opportunity presented itself when the three-judge panel of the Supreme Court, in the case of L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India[27], decided to refer the issue to a higher-ranking bench. The well-known ruling in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India[28], issued by the Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, is now the prevailing national law.

CONCLUSION

In reality, the country houses many functioning tribunals. However, only a small number of them have managed to cultivate public trust. The tribunals have regularly exhibited a clear absence of impartiality and competence while deciding disputes. The failure of the tribunals can be attributed to the composition of its members and the procedure employed for staff appointments.

The inefficacy of these tribunals stems from the dearth of qualified persons with the requisite expertise who are willing to serve on them. Thirty-five The expansion of tribunals in India has been hindered by political interference, unfavourable working conditions, executive interference, and volatility in tenure. Tribunals are intended to offer specialized adjudicatory services, but, the individuals nominated to these panels lack the necessary knowledge and are just present as a result of political pressure and government meddling.

Tribunals must establish public confidence by showcasing their competence and expertise, as well as their unbiased and judicial approach. This is crucial since tribunals are designed to serve as substitutes for higher courts. In order to fulfil this task, members of the tribunal must possess the requisite judicial knowledge and expertise. In order to provide a balanced perspective, it is important to involve experts in the relevant field alongside the judicial authorities. Only via a meticulous equilibrium can an effective and purpose-driven tribunal system be attained. Ensuring the autonomy of these tribunal members from interference by the executive or political entities is another essential measure that has to be implemented. Just as tenure security and institutionalized appointment procedures protect the regular judiciary from political interference, the high courts should give up their supervisory power over the tribunals to reduce their workload even more. Hence, it is crucial to establish a singular, centralized governing entity to oversee the functioning of the tribunals. Having such a high degree of centralization in an umbrella body would ensure that the tribunals remain independent in terms of their financing and tenure.

Given the present conditions, it can be deduced that the administration has a substantial impact on both the operation of the government and the well-being of its populace. Due to the increasing scope of this role, it is imperative to establish a competent entity to address public grievances and resolve conflicts. Consequently, the concept of administrative tribunals was established and is still flourishing in India, albeit with significant drawbacks and benefits.

Hence, the comprehensive portrayal of the nation's implementation of judicial tribunals falls short of being ideal. A thorough reassessment of India's tribunal system is needed to ensure expeditious dispensation of justice and effective settlement of administrative conflicts, which are pivotal for the nation's progress.

References: