Tribunals

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

In pursuance of Article 323 A, the Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985. This Act authorizes the Central government to establish:

• One Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
• State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

• Nature: CAT is a multi-member body. Earlier, it consisted of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members. With the amendment in Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in 2006, the members have been given the status of Judges of High Courts.
• Composition (as of 2016): The sanctioned strength of the Chairman is one, and the sanctioned strength of the Members is 65.
• Appointment: The Chairman and Members are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams and are appointed by the President.
• Tenure: They hold office for a term of five years or until they attain the age of 65 years, in the case of Chairman, and 62 years in the case of members, whichever is earlier.
• Appointment Process: The appointment of Members in CAT is made on the basis of recommendations of a high-powered selection committee chaired by a Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, who is nominated by the Chief Justice of India. After obtaining the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India, appointments are made with the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
• Jurisdiction: The CAT exercises original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of public servants covered by it. Its jurisdiction extends to:
  • All-India services
  • Central civil services
  • Civil posts under the Centre
  • Civilian employees of Defence Services
• Exclusions from CAT Jurisdiction: Members of the defence forces, officers and servants of the Supreme Court, and the secretarial staff of the Parliament are not covered by CAT.
• Appeal: Appeals against the orders of CAT can be made to the Supreme Court directly, without necessarily going through the High Court first. However, a division bench of a High Court can hear appeals against CAT decisions before the matter reaches the Supreme Court (as per the L. Chandra Kumar case, 1997).

State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)

• Establishment: The Central government establishes State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) on the specific request of the concerned state government.
• Composition: The Chairman and members of the SATs are appointed by the President after consultation with the Governor of the concerned state.
• Jurisdiction: SATs exercise original jurisdiction over recruitment and all service matters concerning public servants of the respective state government.
• Removal: The Chairman and members of SATs can be removed by the President.
• Appeal: Appeals against the orders of SATs lie with the High Court of the concerned state.

Other Tribunals (Under Article 323 B)

Article 323 B empowers Parliament and state legislatures to establish tribunals for the adjudication of disputes relating to specific matters, such as:

• Taxation
• Foreign exchange, import and export
• Industrial and labour disputes
• Land reforms
• Ceiling on urban property
• Elections to Parliament and state legislatures
• Food stuffs and other essential goods
• Rent and tenancy rights

Key difference between Article 323 A and 323 B:

• Article 323 A only allows for the establishment of administrative tribunals (for service matters), while Article 323 B allows for tribunals for other specific subjects.
• Under Article 323 A, only Parliament can establish tribunals, whereas under Article 323 B, both Parliament and state legislatures can establish tribunals for subjects falling within their respective legislative competence.

Significance of Tribunals

• Reduce Burden on Courts: Help in clearing the huge backlog of cases in civil courts.
• Expertise: Provide specialized knowledge and expertise in specific areas, leading to more informed decisions.
• Speedy Justice: Offer a faster and less formal judicial process compared to traditional courts.
• Cost-Effective: Generally, the procedures in tribunals are less expensive than those in regular courts.

Challenges/Criticisms of Tribunals

• Lack of Independence: Concerns regarding the executive's influence over appointments, removal, and administrative control, which can affect the independence of tribunals.
• Lack of Uniformity: Discrepancies in the structure, powers, and procedures of different tribunals.
• Access to Justice: While intended to be simpler, the complex nature of some tribunal procedures can still be intimidating for ordinary citizens.
• Limited Judicial Review: Initial concerns about bypassing High Courts, though the Supreme Court's ruling in L. Chandra Kumar case affirmed the High Courts' power of judicial review over tribunal decisions.
• Quality of Justice: Debates exist over whether tribunals, particularly those with a strong administrative component, can deliver the same quality of justice as traditional courts.