DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND COURTS

This article is written by Soumi Kundu of Surendranath Law College, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Abstract

Courts and Tribunals are not opposite bodies. Tribunals work in supplement to Judicial Courts. With the modernization of society differences and disputes are increasing among people. Though Courts are present in different hierarchies with broader jurisdictional purview. Tribunals based on specific legislation provide quick relief in matters and also decrease the court’s burden.

Sometimes there are clashes between both bodies and that should be neutralized by the government by formulating clear rules and directions. So, that The Courts and The Tribunals both can coexist mutually without usurping the power of others.

Keywords

Tribunals, Court, Legislative bodies, jurisdiction

Introduction

India’s governing power is separated into three organs- Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. The judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution of India. The Constitution provides us various rights and others rights are also given to the country’s common people. When people’s rights get violated, they come to the judiciary for justice. People can approach courts at different levels from lower courts to the Supreme Court to adjudicate their matters. Courts are often overburdened with work as a result the proceedings get delayed and sometimes the same case goes on because of appeals in different Courts. That’s why to lessen the Court’s burden, and to give speedy–trials there was a need to create bodies that would work in simulation with courts. As a result, Administrative Tribunals were established. These tribunals work on specific matters within less time and procedures are also simple and provide Justice more efficiently. These bodies are mainly Quasi-judicial, tribunal bodies created under a particular statute and this body decides matters on that subject only.

Sometimes, a clash is created between the judiciary and tribunals about their Jurisdiction and power. In this article, the author explains in detail the courts and tribunals and how they differ in various aspects.

As a State organ Judiciary and courts are traditional bodies that mainly work for dispute resolution among different entities. With the changing needs of society, the government is shifting from a mere police state to a responsible governing entity, and for running a smooth government requirement of new laws, rules, and regulations are also increasing. Disputes and differences regarding these laws and their implementation are also on the higher side. The judiciary works as a protector of the country’s legal system in case of any discrepancies everyone is approaching towards court as a result, the courts are getting overburdened with work and the justice delivery system is getting delayed.

To solve this kind of problem tribunal system has developed in India as a parallel to the Court structure. Tribunals are not proper judicial bodies they are quasi-judicial established under specific statutes to deal with cases related to those statutes only. As tribunals work on specific matters, they can dispose of a matter quickly than ordinary courts. Tribunals cannot substitute the court system properly they only can work simultaneously. Any decision by the tribunals can be appealed in High Courts and Supreme Courts for judicial review.

Administrative Tribunal

The administrative Tribunal works as a bridge between the executive and judiciary. Tribunals are mainly quasi-judicial. Tribunals work mainly as a supportive body of Courts; it helps in decreasing the court’s burden by expediting the process of justice.

In India, the tribunal system was introduced even before independence. The first tribunal was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal established in 1941. After independence, the tribunal system was included in the Indian Constitution by 42nd Amendment in 1976. The term tribunal was introduced by inserting Article 323A[1] and Article 323B[2].

Article 323A talks about establishing an Administrative Tribunal for service matters. This article gives parliament the power to establish tribunals in respect of particular statutes regarding service conditions and recruitment of Public Service officials and some other services related to Central and State Governments.

As per this article Administrative Tribunal can be established for a Union as well as one or for different states, those tribunals will work within their jurisdiction, and their power and authority to decide a particular matter should be maintained, these tribunals can exclude all court’s Jurisdiction except the Supreme Court. Any cases that are pending before any Indian court can be transferred to a tribunal for adjudication provided that the cause of action of the matter has arisen after the establishment of the tribunal.

Article 323B says that Parliament and State Legislature can establish any tribunal as per law to adjudicate disputes and decide any offenses related to the imposition of tax, export and import business of foreign exchange, and disputes regarding industrial and labor laws and matters related to urban property ceiling, rent laws and food production and distribution and more.

There is a minute difference between Article 323A and Article 323B. Where Article 323A provides power to make tribunals only to the parliament, Article 323B also extends that same power to the State governments. The first article only talks about the matter related to Service affairs and article 323B adjudicates disputes and other things.

Characteristics of Administrative Tribunal

• Administrative Tribunals are established under a specific statute.
• Tribunals are quasi-judicial.
• Tribunals are not bound to follow proper rules and procedures like courts.
• Though these bodies are established by executives, tribunals are free from administrative interference.
• Tribunals have the power to summon witnesses and administer their oaths and they can also compel any party to produce documents before it.
• Tribunals should follow the principles of Natural Justice.
• Writs like Certiorari and Prohibition can also be invoked against the administrative tribunals.[3]

Tribunal’s Composition

The Supreme Court mentioned that members of the Central government departments as well as experts from various fields are eligible to be members of the tribunal. The presence of technical members with judicial members is the main difference between a Court and a tribunal. For becoming a judicial member the person should be a High Court judge or lawyer with experience and those are eligible for appointment as High Court Judge.[4]

Types of Tribunals

Tribunals can be divided into three types- Central Administrative Tribunal, State Tribunals, and Joint Administrative Tribunals.

• Central Administrative Tribunals are bodies that work under the authority of the Central government. This tribunal mainly deals with service matters of central government employees and any local or state government employees who work under the control of the government of India.
• State Tribunals– Article 323B powers the state governments to create tribunals on different matters related to tax imposition, land reforms, and dispute resolution. Some examples are-

Water Disputes Tribunal– that adjudicates disputes regarding inter-state rivers and water bodies.

Armed Forces Tribunal– this tribunal deals with disputes and complaints regarding appointments, enrolments, and service conditions regarding armed forces.

National Green Tribunal– this tribunal deals with environment-related problems. Works for speedy disposal of those cases and protects the environment and natural resources.

• Joint Administrative Tribunals- thesetribunals are established by two or more states to deal with any disputes. Both the states can exercise their power over those tribunals.[5]

 The Court System in India

The third and most important governing organ of our country is the Judiciary. The Judiciary maintains the checks and balances within the different organs of the government. Any legislature made by the Executive is getting examined before the Courts in India. The judiciary acts as a last resort for people in case their rights are violated or any legal wrong has been done to them.

Functions of Indian Judiciary

1. The Guardian of the Indian Constitution– The Judiciary acts as the Guardian of the Indian Constitution. It protects the ethos and principles of the Constitution. Any law, rules, regulations, or ordinances that are being made by the executive organs of the government go against the principles of the Constitution. The judiciary declares it is null and void.
2. Fundamental Rights Protection– part iii of our Indian Constitution provides some fundamental rights. These rights are regarded as some basic rights that are essential for human survival. Fundamental rights are given to citizens as well as non-citizens. When people’s rights get violated, they directly approach to courts.
3. Judge-made laws- when any matter comes before the court in which Legislatures has not made any law yet. In those instances, the apex court provides certain guidelines that work as a guiding principle for legislation in their future law-making. Sometimes the judiciary interprets any part of the law from a broader perspective that helps to widen the area of law.
4. Dispute Resolution– A federal governing structure can be seen in India. Sometimes disputes also occurred between the Center and States regarding law-making and other powers. The judiciary works as an impartial body to solve those matters lawfully.[6]

Hierarchy of Courts

In India, we have different Courts at various levels. The Supreme Court is and then there are High Courts for every State, and there are District Courts as well as lower courts.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is regarded as the topmost court of India. Established in the year 1950, from that time the court has been functioning as a guardian of the Indian Constitution. Article 124[7]– Article 147[8] talks about the jurisdiction and composition of the Supreme Court. The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of the Collegium system.

The Supreme Court has three types of Jurisdictions those are- Original Jurisdiction, Appellate Jurisdiction, and Advisory Jurisdiction.

Article 131[9] of the Indian Constitution provides the authority to the Supreme Court to deal with any dispute between the Center and the State and also between two states. Under Article 32[10] Supreme Court has a Writ Jurisdiction in which any matter that directly violates the Fundamental Rights of any individual can be directly decided by the Court. This Court has the power to transfer cases from one High Court to another.

Under Appellate Jurisdiction Supreme Court can listen to any matter related to Civil and Criminal that has been decided by the High Court. Some conditions need to be fulfilled for that those are-

The matter carries great substantial value and the High Court believes that the matter should be decided by the Supreme Court. For Criminal Cases to get appealed in the apex court punishment should be a minimum of 10 years.

Under Article 136[11] Supreme Court has a Special Leave petition and this grants the privilege to listen to any appeal passed by any courts and tribunals.

In Advisory Jurisdiction Supreme Court advises the President in any matter where the President asks for that.

Under Article 129[12] Supreme Court has the power to punish any person or any organization for not following its directions. This is known as Contempt of Court.

High Court

Article 214[13] says about having a High Court in every state. However, the Parliament can establish a common High Court for two or more than two High Courts.

The High Court Judges are appointed by the President of India after consulting with the Collegium and the Chief Justice of the particular High Court. The Governor of a state gives oath to judges of the High Court.

Jurisdiction

The High Court has original jurisdiction as it can directly decide any matter related to a breach of fundamental rights, any kind of revenue matters, and disputes regarding state elections.

Under Article 226[14] The High Court also has the power of Writ Jurisdiction that authorizes the High Court to listen to any matter related to the violation of Fundamental Rights and any matter of greater importance.

The High Court also has the right to decide any matter of a Civil and Criminal nature under appellate jurisdiction provided that the matter is related to a substantial question of law and for criminal matters the punishment should be a minimum of 7 years.

Article 227[15] provides supervisory Jurisdiction to the High Courts over all the lower Courts and Tribunals established within that High Court’s territorial jurisdiction.

The High Court also has the power to punish anyone who disrespects the Court’s decorum or does not follow the Court’s order under Contempt of Court under Article 215[16].

District Courts

The District Court is established for one District or multiple districts. The High Court has the supervisory power over the administration of lower courts. In the District Courts, two types of courts can be seen based on Criminal and Civil matters.

Civil matters are dealt with under the Civil Procedure Code, of 1908. In Civil Courts, the matters are divorce cases and other family law-related matters, Contract law-related matters, land law-related matters, and other things.

The criminal matters are decided based on the Criminal Procedure Code, of 1973. In Criminal cases mainly there are rape, murder, theft, and other matters. Those District Courts that listen to criminal matters are known as Session Courts.

The District Judges have the appellate authority to decide matters of its subordinate Courts.

Subordinate Courts

At lower levels, the courts that decide civil matters are the Senior Civil Judge Court and Junior Civil Judge Court. In criminal cases, the courts are Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, First class and Second-class Judicial Magistrate Courts. Most, cases are filled in the lower judicial Court where the primary trial takes place.

Difference Between Courts and Tribunals

Though the Tribunals and Courts have similar kind of functions there are differences between these two matters in various aspects. Those are-

Difference based on Nature

The tribunals are quasi-judicial in nature. These bodies do not follow the rules and procedures like the Judicial courts. In tribunal members from both legal as well as non-legal backgrounds can be appointed. Each tribunal decides matters only related to the statutes through which these tribunals are created.

Difference in Meaning

Tribunals are statutory bodies. Their powers are limited. The judiciary is one of the three organs of government it is free from any influence of other bodies. The scope of deciding any matters is broader for the Judiciary. The Supreme Courts and The High Courts have the power to do judicial review on any rulings of the tribunals.

Difference in Functionality

The courts are judicial in nature. Courts decide a matter based on shreds of evidence presented before it. A court cannot investigate any matter on its own.

Tribunals are quasi-judicial they have Judicial along with executive powers. Tribunals have the power to investigate any matter. But tribunals only can solve disputes they do not have the power to decide the validity of any legislature. As the tribunals do not follow proper procedures like court they can quickly dispose of any matter.

Difference based on Fees

Court fees depend upon the subject matter of a particular case. And as the proceedings continued for long expenses in court cases are on the higher side.

On the other hand expenditures in matters of tribunals are very low and they also give quick responses in the cases of dispute resolution.

Jurisdictional Difference

Tribunals’ jurisdictions are narrow as they can only focus on the area for which it is created. The Judiciary has broader jurisdiction on different Civil, Criminal, and Corporate matters. The judiciary even can review matters decided by Tribunals on specific issues.

Landmark Rulings that Clarify the Position and Power of Administrative Tribunals

S. P. Sampath Kumar Etc. v Union of India and Oth.[17]

In this case, it was held that tribunals have the same status as the High Court. Tribunals can be regarded as an alternate body of High Courts if tribunals can show that they have the same efficacy as the High Courts. The main point was that tribunals are not supplementary but they can substitute High Courts.

This judgment also discussed the appointment procedures of Tribunals. The Court said that members can be appointed by the Central government in consultation with the CJI or through a high-powered committee headed by the CJI or by a current Supreme Court or High Court Judge.

L Chandra Kumar v Union of India[18]

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a tribunal to substitute the High Court should have the same status as a High Court. The Court also struck down some provisions of Articles 323A and 323B whereby it established judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court over the rulings of Tribunals. Tribunals will be regarded as a court of first instance in case of their specific matters. People should also move to tribunals first before approaching court.

If anyone is not satisfied with the tribunal’s rulings, they can approach to division bench of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. After that only they can reach to Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition under Article 136.

The President of India on 4th April 2021 created an Ordinance titled, the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 that introduced some amendments to the Tribunals Reforms Act. The ordinance amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2017, and thereby handed more power to the hand of Central government in case of appointments, salaries and, and tenures of tribunal members, it abolished nine tribunals, the minimum age for appointment was fixed to 50 years. The duration of the tenure of every member was fixed to four years.

This ordinance was challenged before the Supreme Court in

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr[19]

the Supreme Court in this case held that based on the Court’s previous Judgment the tenure period cannot be reduced to 4 years, and the minimum age limit is also not valid as it prevents young eligible people from becoming members. The Court also directed that appointment suggestions made by the high-level selection committee should be finalized within three months.

Conclusion

Tribunals and Courts are both important in their respective places. With the increasing rate of population, the disputes related to different matters also increase. As a result, the Courts were becoming burdensome and to reduce that burden and quick disposal of matters tribunals were established. Tribunals are capable of deciding service-related matters and dispute resolutions on different things that lessen the Court cases, and later those cases can also be reviewed by Courts.

At last, we can conclude that tribunals and courts are both relevant in today’s time to provide justice quickly.

References

1. INDIA CONST. Art. 323A.
2. INDIA CONST. Art. 323B.
3. Neha Gururani, Administrative Tribunals in India, IPLEADERS (Oct. 27, 2024 08:06 AM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/administrative-tribunals-in-india/
4. PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/prs-products/the-tribunal-system-in-india-3750#_edn25 ( last Visited Oct.27, 2024)
5. Tribunals, DRISHTI IAS (Oct. 29, 2024, 08:41 PM), https://www.drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-institutions/tribunals-1
6. Gautam Badlani, Judicial System in India, IPLEADERS (Oct.27, 2024 08:22 AM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-system-in-india/
7. INDIA CONST. art. 124
8. INDIA CONST. art. 147
9. INDIA CONST. art. 131
10. INDIA CONST. art. 32
11. INDIA CONST. art. 136
12. INDIA CONST. art. 129
13. INDIA CONST. art. 214
14. INDIA CONST. art. 226
15. INDIA CONST. Art. 227
16. INDIA CONST. Art. 215
17. S.P. Sampath Kumar Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors AIR1987 SCR (1) 435
18. L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1125
19. Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 000502 of 2021, Supreme Court of India

---

[1] INDIA CONST. art. 323A.

[2] INDIA CONST. art. 323B.

[3] Neha Gururani, Administrative Tribunals in India, IPLEADERS (oct.27, 2024 08:06 AM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/administrative-tribunals-in-india/

[4] PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/prs-products/the-tribunal-system-in-india-3750#_edn25 ( last Visited Oct.27, 2024)

[5] Tribunals, DRISHTI IAS (Oct. 29, 2024, 08:41PM), https://www.drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-institutions/tribunals-1

[6] Gautam Badlani, Judicial System in India, IPLEADERS (Oct.27, 2024 08:22 AM) https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-system-in-india/

[7] INDIA CONST. art. 124

[8] INDIA CONST. art. 147

[9] INDIA CONST. art. 131

[10] INDIA CONST. art. 32

[11] INDIA CONST. art. 136

[12] INDIA CONST. art. 129

[13] INDIA CONST. art. 214

[14] INDIA CONST. art. 226

[15] INDIA CONST. art. 227

[16] INDIA CONST. art. 215

[17] S.P. Sampath Kumar Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors AIR1987 SCR (1) 435

[18] L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1125

[19] Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 000502 of 2021, Supreme Court of India

 Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.