Complete Guide to Administrative Tribunals in India

INTRODUCTION

The origin of the Administrative Tribunals in India dates back to the year 1941. The government established the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to provide specialized and speedy administrative justice. Presently, the existence of tribunal system is mainly accredited to globalization of trade and WTO Agreement imperative. This demands justice to be open, fair, and speedy.

The tribunal system plays a crucial part in the dispute resolution process. Administrative tribunals in India work differently from courts, from the appointment process to the procedures followed. Tribunals may not follow any consistent method as outlined in the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian Evidence Act. However, they must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The tribunals have their own set of drawbacks, including a lack of independence; administrative difficulties, such as anomalies in member qualification, tenure, retirement age, and Nodal ministries; the High Court’s jurisdiction and case pending status; and vacancies in tribunals. Tribunal administration has grown to be a significant component of both government and everyday life.

Categories of Administrative Tribunals in India

Administrative tribunals in India can be classified into four categories, namely: 1. Tribunals that are setup outside mainstream judicial system and decide disputes between government and private individuals. 2. Tribunals that are setup within the judicial framework and decides disputes between citizens pertaining to rent, industries, motor vehicles etc. 3. Tribunals that are setup to decide disputes between private individuals but established outside the mainstream judicial system. 4. Tribunals that are constituted under Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution of India in order to decide disputes pertaining to government and private individuals.

Constitutional Validity of Administrative Tribunals in India

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides the citizens the right to specialized, quality and speedy justice. However, the existing judicial system is unable to provide speedy justice. Primary reasons being inherent delays, technicalities of procedure, by labyrinth of appeals and affordable cost. This makes the Administrative tribunals in India in India essential for handling specialized cases efficiently. The tribunal system must function without compromising the constitutional judiciary, which forms the backbone of India’s legal framework. To ensure this, the tribunal system should operate under the guidance of the Supreme Court, similar to the UK’s model under the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act, 2007.

The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association upheld the validity of the tribunals that decide disputes between private individuals that are established outside the mainstream judicial system. Due to this decision of the Supreme Court, the government decided to establish more tribunals within areas of company law, tax law and intellectual property and took away the jurisdiction of High Courts and passed it to administrative tribunals in India. This led to a conflict between constitutional judiciary and Parliament where the executive always tried to subdue the judiciary by limiting its jurisdiction either overtly or covertly.

Judicial Review and Superintendence Over Tribunals

In the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Court asserted the power of the judicial review and superitendence over the tribunals by observing that excusing the jurisdiction of the High Court violates the basic structure of the Constitution. The court held that Article 323-A and Article 323-B are not unconstitutional.  But it held those provisions of law which invalidated jurisdiction of constitutional court under Article 226, Article 227 and Article 32 of the Constitution to be unconstitutional.

Similarly, the Parliament in the year 2002 amended the Companies Act, 1956 and established the National Company Law Tribunal containing 62 members and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal containing 3 members in order to exercised jurisdiction under the law that took away the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case of Union of India v. Madras Bar Association challenged The constitutional validity of these tribunals. The Madras High Court upheld the validity of National Company Law Tribunal but also struck down certain provisions of the Acton the grounds of unconstitutionality.

Creation of the National Tax Tribunal and Its Legal Challenges

The matter came before the Supreme Court and simultaneously the government issued an ordinance to create the National Taxation Tribunal. Various High Courts repeatedly challenged the constitutional validity of the law.  Then, the Supreme court took over.

This matter was referred to a Bench of five judges who considered three main questions, namely:

1. Does the Parliament possess competence to vest essential judicial functions in a tribunal outside its authoritative domain?
2. What is the constitutional limit to the transfer of such power to the administrative tribunal?
3. Whether the creation of independent administrative tribunals violate the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary?

The Supreme Court focused on matters pertaining to qualifications, tenure conditions of service and the manner of appointment of judges of the tribunals but did not decide on the role of tribunals in the overall constitutional justice delivery system. However, the Supreme Court de-linked the tribunals under Article 323-B of the Constitution and other tribunals. Thus, Administrative tribunals in India can act as a substitute of judicial justice only in cases where the tenure, qualifications, conditions of service, independent manner of appointment etc. of the judges of the tribunals are same as that of the judges of a judicial court.

Supreme Court Ruling on the National Tax Tribunal

In the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held the National Tax Tribunal to be unconstitutional upon the abovementioned reasoning.

Also, in the case of Shamshad Basheer v. Union of India, the Division Bench of Madras High Court held that the main provisions of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board established under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to be unconstitutional on the ground that an officer of the executive cannot act as a judicial capacity.

Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals in India

Administrative Tribunals in India shall have the following characteristics, namely:

1. An administrative tribunal has statutory origin as it is a result of creation of a statute.

2. Administrative tribunals possesses some features of a judicial court but not all.

3. An administrative tribunal performs judicial functions as well as quasi-judicial functions, which differ from pure administrative or executive functions. They are also bound to act judicially.

4. An administrative tribunals possess power of courts to summon witnesses, to administer oath and to compel production of documents in procedural matters.

5. The standard rules of evidence or procedure do not bound the administrative tribunals.

6. The doctrine of precedent does not bound the administrative tribunals.

7. The decision of administrative tribunals in India is judicial in nature and not merely administrative. This is because they have to record findings of facts objectively and then apply the law to them without regard to executive policy.

8. Most administrative tribunals in India do not deal with cases where the government is a party rather, they also deal with disputes between two parties; for example, Election Tribunal, Rent Tribunal, Industrial Tribunal etc. However, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal always decides cases where one party is the government and the other is the assessees.

9. Administrative tribunals are not subject to any administrative interference in the discharge of their judicial functions or quasi-judicial functions, as they are independent administrative bodies that exercise judicial powers. The Constitution itself granted these judicial powers, apart from the statute creating it.

10. The administrative tribunals are under judicial control via writs of certiorari and prohibition.

STATURORY TRIBUNALS

An intensive form of government lead to an administration possessing adjudicatory powers. The existence of a tribunal is quite important for the exercise of adjudicatory powers by administrative bodies. The word “tribunal” is also understood as “seat of the judge” and its wide application also includes within itself the term “court”. However, with regards to administrative law, the word “tribunal” has special meaning and significance. The word “tribunal” is used to refer to adjudicatory bodies outside the sphere of ordinary courts of the land. The Constitution of India, under Article 136, Article 226 and Article 227 uses the terms “tribunals” and “courts” to mean two different things.

Therefore, a tribunal may possess some but not all trappings of a court as was also held in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P. N. Sharma.

In order to consider a body to be a tribunal, it must be administrative characteristics while also possessing adjudicatory powers to decide matters pertaining to questions of law or fact that affect the rights of citizens.

The Supreme Court in the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, provided a test to determine whether an administrative body exercising adjudicatory powers is a tribunal or not. The test is whether;

1. There is a lis - an affirmation by one party and denial by the other;
2. The dispute involves decision on the rights and obligations of parties; and
3. The authority is called upon to decide it.

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISION OF TRIBUNALS

If the applicable statute does not provide the ability to appeal, revise, or refer to a Tribunal’s judgment, no such right is retained. It is possible to enact provisions to remove the jurisdiction of civil courts, and tribunals will issue the final decision. However, if the Tribunal may act without jurisdiction, or fails to exercise its authority, or if a Tribunal’s order is arbitrary or mala fide, or violates natural justice principles, or contains obvious errors, or violates the statute, it can be overturned by the High Court or Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION

Though the idea and operation of Tribunals and Quasi-Judicial Bodies is still new in our nation, it is clear that in the current situation, administration has become an essential component of both the government and the citizens. Because of this growing role, it is critical to develop a competent authority for the resolution of people's concerns and the adjudication of disputes. As a result, the notion of administrative tribunals evolved and is rapidly gaining traction, despite certain shortcomings. The Administrative Tribunals in India play an essential role in providing individuals with timely and professional adjudication. It also assists the Court in lowering its burden by providing an alternate structure with the same level of power and duty.