Nature of administrative tribunals- constitution, powers, procedures, rule of evidence

Theoretical overview

The dictionary meaning of the word tribunal is “seat of a judge” which is a very wide expression that can include the word “courts” in it. But in administrative law, this term tribunal refers to adjudicatory bodies outside the sphere of ordinary court of the land. In order to be recognized as a tribunal, a body must be administrative in character but invested with some judicial powers to adjudicate on questions of law or fact affecting the rights of citizens in a judicial manner. From a functional point of view, this administrative tribunal is neither exclusively a judicial body nor exclusively an administrative body but is somewhere between the two.

As per the supreme court, the test for a body to be considered as tribunal are

1. There is a “lis” – an affirmation by one party and denial by the other
2. The dispute involved decisions on the rights and obligations of parties
3. The authority is called upon to decide it.

Administrative tribunals can be divided into four categories which are as follows: –

1. Tribunals set up outside the main streams of judicial system and decide disputes between government and private individuals
2. Within the judicial framework and decide disputes between citizens like rent, industrial tribunals.
3. Tribunals established to decide disputes between private individuals and citizens but outside the judicial system like company law boards (CLB).
4. Tribunals constituted under art 323a and 323b of the Indian constitution to decide disputes between govt. and the citizens.

In Indian context, the word tribunal used in four different senses: –

1. Firstly, all administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions which have to follow the principles of natural justice.
2. Secondly, all those administrative bodies which are outside the control of the department are involved in dispute and hence decide like a judge free from any departmental bias.
3. Thirdly, as defined by article 136 of the constitution. With reference to its special leave jurisdiction, the SC held that the authority must exercise “inherent judicial powers of the state”.
4. Fourthly, those tribunals which are constituted and established under art 323a and 323b such as administrative service tribunal.

The supreme court has upheld the validity of these tribunals from time to time. The tribunals must be set up in a way that it would not violate the basic structure of the constitution and follows the principle of natural justice. People have a right under article 21 to a specialized, quality and speedy justice and the tribunals can be very fruitful in achieving the same. It will eliminate inherent displays, technicalities of procedure. If the judges of the tribunals have the same qualification, tenure, conditions of service and independent manner of appointment, then only tribunals can be a substitute for the judicial justice.

Procedures and rule of evidence – 

These tribunals do not follow a uniform procedure. The procedure is sometimes laid down by the statute, and sometimes the tribunals are left free to develop their own procedures. In the absence of statutory requirements, tribunals follow the rule of natural justice. Their proceedings are considered to be judicial for the purpose of section 193, 195 and 226 of IPC. They are deemed to be civil courts for the purpose of sections 480 and 482, CrPC. The technical rules of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to tribunals. The principle of res judicata does not apply to tribunals.

By the constitution 42^nd amendment, art 323a and 323b were added to the constitution which talked about tribunals. Earlier they were not under the jurisdiction of high courts under article 226 and 227. But, after a significant case in 1997, they were bought under the jurisdiction of high courts. 

Regulation of these tribunals-

In India, there is an undeniable need for an agency which could supervise these administrative agencies. In 2021, parliament passed the tribunal reforms bill, which provided for the uniform pay and rules for the search-cum-selection committee for tribunals and also made provisions for the removal of tribunal members. It empowers the central government to remove any chairman or member from office on the recommendation of search-cum-selection committee on the grounds of insolvency, physical or mental incapacity, conflict of interest, abuse of power and conviction for an offence. But it lacked in its implementation and raised some serious concerns.

Important case laws

1. L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India (1997) – the court asserted the power of judicial review and superintendence over tribunals by holding that excluding the jurisdiction of high court violates the basic structure of constitution. It invalidated provisions of law which excluded the jurisdiction of the constitutional court under article 226,227 and 32 of the constitution.
2. Union of India vs Madras Bar assn. – the madras high court struck down certain provisions of the act but upheld the validity of the national company law tribunal as some provisions took away the jurisdiction of the high court.
3. Shamnad Basser vs. Union of India (2015) – division bench of madras high court struck down the main provisions relating to the intellectual property appellate board (IPAB) established under the trade marks act, 1999 as unconstitutional on the ground that an officer of the executive cannot act in a judicial capacity.
4. Kihoto Hollaban v. Zachillhu (1992) – the supreme court observed that the test for a body to be considered as tribunal are: –

• There is a “lis” – an affirmation by one party and denial by the other
• The dispute involved decisions on the rights and obligations of parties
• The authority is called upon to decide it.

Most important section/articles

1. Article 32 – writ jurisdiction of supreme court
2. Article 136 – special leave petition in supreme court
3. Article 226 and 227 – writ jurisdiction in high court and supreme court
4. Article 323a and 323b – it talks about a tribunal that can be  set up by the central government.

Other important concepts

1. Writs– Writs are a written order from the Supreme Court or High Court that commands constitutional remedies for Indian Citizens against the violation of their fundamental rights. Article 32 in the Indian Constitution deals with constitutional remedies that an Indian citizen can seek from the Supreme Court of India and High Court against the violation of his/her fundamental rights. The same article gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs for the enforcement of rights whereas the High Court has the same power under Article 226. The writs- Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition.
2. Judicial review – It is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.

Points to remember

• The dictionary meaning of the word tribunal is “seat of a judge”
• But in administrative law, this term tribunal refers to adjudicatory bodies outside the sphere of ordinary court of the land
• From a functional point of view, these administrative tribunal is neither exclusively a judicial body nor exclusively an administrative body but is somewhere between the two.
• The tribunals must be set up in a way that it would not violate the basic structure of the constitution and follows the principle of natural justice
• Tribunals will eliminate inherent displays, technicalities of procedure

Sources 

• Administrative law book by IP Massey.
• https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/judicial-review-1
• https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/types-of-writs-in-india/