42nd Amendment and Tribunals
The original Indian Constitution made no mention of tribunals. This gap was addressed by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, which introduced a new Part XIV-A titled "Tribunals." Comprising just two articles, this part lays the foundation for specialized judicial mechanisms: Article 323A focuses on administrative tribunals, while Article 323B provides for tribunals dealing with other matters, such as those related to taxes, foreign exchange, industrial disputes, and land reforms.
Administrative Tribunals
Article 323A of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament the authority to establish administrative tribunals specifically for adjudicating disputes related to the recruitment and conditions of service of public servants. This covers employees appointed to services under the central government, state governments, local bodies, public corporations, and other public authorities. In essence, the provision enables Parliament to divest civil courts and high courts of jurisdiction over these service matters, channeling them instead to specialized administrative tribunals for focused and efficient resolution.
Acting on this constitutional mandate, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Act empowers the central government to constitute a Central Administrative Tribunal and, where necessary, State Administrative Tribunals. This legislation marks a significant advancement in the justice delivery system, offering aggrieved public servants a faster and more affordable avenue to address their grievances and thereby enhancing administrative fairness.
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
Established in 1985 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) serves as a specialized forum to adjudicate disputes related to public service recruitment and conditions of employment. Its principal bench is located in Delhi, complemented by 17 regular benches across the country—15 at the principal seats of high courts and the remaining two in Jaipur and Lucknow. These benches also conduct circuit sittings at other high court locations, ensuring accessible justice for public servants nationwide.
The CAT holds original jurisdiction over service matters involving All-India Services, Central Civil Services, civil posts under the Union government, and civilian employees of defence establishments. Notably, it excludes members of the defence forces, officers and staff of the Supreme Court, and secretarial personnel of Parliament, channeling their grievances through separate mechanisms.
Comprising a Chairman and members drawn from judicial and administrative backgrounds, the CAT operates as a multi-member body. Initially structured with a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and members, the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006, eliminated the Vice-Chairman position. As of 2019, the sanctioned strength stands at one Chairman and 65 members, all appointed by the President. They serve for a term of five years or until attaining the age of 65 years for the Chairman and 62 years for members, whichever occurs earlier.
Appointments follow a rigorous process: a high-powered selection committee, chaired by a sitting Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India, recommends candidates. With the Chief Justice's concurrence, final approval rests with the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. This blend of judicial oversight and executive sanction underscores the tribunal's independence.
Unfettered by the rigid procedures of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the CAT adheres only to the principles of natural justice, fostering a flexible and efficient approach. Applicants pay a nominal fee of ₹50 and may represent themselves or engage a lawyer, democratizing access to redressal.
Originally, appeals from CAT orders lay exclusively with the Supreme Court, bypassing high courts. However, in the landmark L. Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court struck down this limitation as unconstitutional, affirming judicial review as part of the Constitution's basic structure. Consequently, appeals now go to the division bench of the relevant high court, requiring aggrieved parties to exhaust this route before approaching the Supreme Court directly. This framework balances specialized adjudication with robust appellate oversight.
State Administrative Tribunals and JATs
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, empowers the Central government to establish State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) at the specific request of state governments. As of 2019, SATs had been set up in nine states: Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala. However, the tribunals in Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Himachal Pradesh were later abolished. Himachal Pradesh has since re-established its SAT, while Tamil Nadu has requested reinstatement. Haryana has sought to create a new SAT, even as Odisha has proposed abolishing its own tribunal.
Mirroring the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), SATs exercise original jurisdiction over recruitment and all service-related matters concerning state government employees. This streamlined approach helps resolve disputes efficiently, bypassing traditional courts.
Appointments to SATs are made by the President, following consultation with the governor of the concerned state. The Act also provides for Joint Administrative Tribunals (JATs) to serve two or more states, which wield the full jurisdiction and powers of individual SATs across those regions. For JATs, the President appoints the chairperson and members after consulting the governors of the relevant states.
Tribunals for Other Matters under Article 323B
The Indian Constitution, through Article 323B, empowers both Parliament and state legislatures to establish tribunals for resolving specific disputes outside the realm of public services. These tribunals address a targeted range of issues, including taxation, foreign exchange, imports and exports, industrial and labour matters, land reforms, ceilings on urban property, elections to Parliament and state legislatures, foodstuffs, and rent and tenancy rights. This provision allows for specialized adjudication tailored to these domains, promoting efficiency in handling complex, sector-specific conflicts.
Article 323B stands apart from Article 323A—which focuses solely on administrative tribunals for public service disputes—in three key respects. First, while Article 323A is limited to service-related matters, Article 323B extends to the diverse areas listed above. Second, tribunals under Article 323A can only be created by Parliament, whereas those under Article 323B may be set up by Parliament or state legislatures, provided the subject falls within their respective legislative powers. Third, Article 323A envisions a single tribunal at the central level and one for each state (or group of states), with no provision for a hierarchical structure; in contrast, Article 323B permits the creation of multi-tiered tribunal systems where needed.
A landmark ruling in the Chandra Kumar case (1997) reshaped the landscape of judicial oversight for these bodies. The Supreme Court struck down provisions in both Articles 323A and 323B that barred the writ jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32. As a result, aggrieved parties now have direct access to these higher courts for challenging tribunal orders, ensuring a vital layer of constitutional review.