–
SUBJECT- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
TOPIC: ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
Administrative tribunals are specialized governmental agencies established under federal or
provincial legislation to implement legislative policy. Some public boards and public decision
makers also have powers of decision making conferred upon them by statute. Such powers of
decision making are conferred upon administrative tribunals, boards or other decision makers in
order to provide a more expeditious, less formal and sometimes less expensive method (than the
courts) for resolving certain types of disputes or issues. Administrative tribunals also provide a
forum in which complex issues can be decided by adjudicators with expertise in the particular
field.
MEANING AND DEFINITION –
The dictionary meaning of the word “Tribunal” is seat of the Judge. According to I.P. Massey
in Administrative Law the term ‘Tribunal’ is used in a special sense and refers to adjudicatory
bodies outside the sphere of ordinary Courts of land.
In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. P.N. Sharma (AIR 1965 SC 1595), Supreme Court held that, a
Tribunal may posses some but not all trapping of the Court. From a functional point of view and
administrative tribunal is neither exclusively a judicial body nor exclusively an administrative body but is
somewhere between the two.
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh (AIR 1954 SC 520) Supreme Court defined
tribunal in the following words The expression Tribunal as used in A- 136 does not mean the
same thing as court but includes,within its ambit all adjudicating bodies, provided they are
constituted by states and are invested with Judicial as distinguished from administrative or
Executive function.
DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution introduced Part XIV-A which included Article 323A
and 323B providing for constitution of tribunals dealing with administrative matters and other
, issues. According to these provisions of the Constitution, tribunals are to be organized and
established in such a manner that they do not violate the integrity of the judicial system given in
the Constitution which forms the basic structure of the Constitution.
The introduction of Article 323A and 323B was done with the primary objective of excluding the
jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court under Article 136 and for originating an efficacious alternative institutional mechanism or
authority for specific judicial cases.
The purpose of establishing tribunals to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts was
done to reduce the pendency and lower the burden of cases. Therefore, tribunals are organised as
a part of civil and criminal court system under the supremacy of the Supreme Court of India.
From a functional point of view, an administrative tribunal is neither an exclusively judicial body
nor an absolute administrative body but is somewhere between the two. That is why an
administrative tribunal is also called ‘quasi-judicial’ body
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
The following are the few attributes of the administrative tribunals which make them quite
disparate from the ordinary courts:
1. Administrative tribunals must have statutory origin i.e. they must be created by any
statute.
2. They must have some features of the ordinary courts but not all.
3. An administrative tribunal performs the quasi-judicial and judicial functions and is
bound to act judicially in every circumstance.
4. They are not adhered by strict rules of evidence and procedure.
5. Administrative tribunals are independent and not subject to any administrative
interference in the discharge of judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
6. In the procedural matters, an administrative tribunal possesses the powers of a court
to summon witnesses, to administer oaths and to compel the production of documents,
etc.
SUBJECT- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
TOPIC: ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
Administrative tribunals are specialized governmental agencies established under federal or
provincial legislation to implement legislative policy. Some public boards and public decision
makers also have powers of decision making conferred upon them by statute. Such powers of
decision making are conferred upon administrative tribunals, boards or other decision makers in
order to provide a more expeditious, less formal and sometimes less expensive method (than the
courts) for resolving certain types of disputes or issues. Administrative tribunals also provide a
forum in which complex issues can be decided by adjudicators with expertise in the particular
field.
MEANING AND DEFINITION –
The dictionary meaning of the word “Tribunal” is seat of the Judge. According to I.P. Massey
in Administrative Law the term ‘Tribunal’ is used in a special sense and refers to adjudicatory
bodies outside the sphere of ordinary Courts of land.
In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. P.N. Sharma (AIR 1965 SC 1595), Supreme Court held that, a
Tribunal may posses some but not all trapping of the Court. From a functional point of view and
administrative tribunal is neither exclusively a judicial body nor exclusively an administrative body but is
somewhere between the two.
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh (AIR 1954 SC 520) Supreme Court defined
tribunal in the following words The expression Tribunal as used in A- 136 does not mean the
same thing as court but includes,within its ambit all adjudicating bodies, provided they are
constituted by states and are invested with Judicial as distinguished from administrative or
Executive function.
DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution introduced Part XIV-A which included Article 323A
and 323B providing for constitution of tribunals dealing with administrative matters and other
, issues. According to these provisions of the Constitution, tribunals are to be organized and
established in such a manner that they do not violate the integrity of the judicial system given in
the Constitution which forms the basic structure of the Constitution.
The introduction of Article 323A and 323B was done with the primary objective of excluding the
jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court under Article 136 and for originating an efficacious alternative institutional mechanism or
authority for specific judicial cases.
The purpose of establishing tribunals to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts was
done to reduce the pendency and lower the burden of cases. Therefore, tribunals are organised as
a part of civil and criminal court system under the supremacy of the Supreme Court of India.
From a functional point of view, an administrative tribunal is neither an exclusively judicial body
nor an absolute administrative body but is somewhere between the two. That is why an
administrative tribunal is also called ‘quasi-judicial’ body
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
The following are the few attributes of the administrative tribunals which make them quite
disparate from the ordinary courts:
1. Administrative tribunals must have statutory origin i.e. they must be created by any
statute.
2. They must have some features of the ordinary courts but not all.
3. An administrative tribunal performs the quasi-judicial and judicial functions and is
bound to act judicially in every circumstance.
4. They are not adhered by strict rules of evidence and procedure.
5. Administrative tribunals are independent and not subject to any administrative
interference in the discharge of judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
6. In the procedural matters, an administrative tribunal possesses the powers of a court
to summon witnesses, to administer oaths and to compel the production of documents,
etc.
