Constitutional Provisions Relating to Administrative Tribunals in India

Administrative Tribunals in India are established under the provisions of the Constitution to provide
an alternative forum for the adjudication of disputes involving the central or state government
employees and other specific matters. Their origin and functioning are rooted in Part XIV-A of the
Indian Constitution, which was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. The key provisions
relating to Administrative Tribunals are encapsulated in Articles 323A and 323B.

1. Background and Need for Administrative Tribunals

The Indian judiciary is often burdened with a high volume of cases, leading to prolonged delays in
the resolution of disputes. Government employees frequently challenge decisions regarding service
conditions, transfers, promotions, and disciplinary actions. These cases add to the judiciary's
workload, resulting in the need for a specialized mechanism to handle such disputes expeditiously.
Administrative Tribunals were envisioned to deliver justice efficiently and reduce the burden on the
regular courts.

2. Article 323A: Administrative Tribunals

Article 323A of the Constitution empowers Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals for
resolving disputes and complaints related to the recruitment and conditions of service of public
servants under the Union, States, or local and other authorities. This provision specifically addresses
service matters of government employees.

Key Features of Article 323A:

• Exclusive Jurisdiction: Administrative Tribunals under this Article have exclusive jurisdiction
to deal with disputes concerning recruitment and service conditions of public servants.

• Establishment: The power to establish such tribunals is exclusively vested in the Parliament.
States cannot independently create such tribunals under this Article.

• Scope of Matters: The tribunals can deal with:

o Recruitment

o Conditions of service

o Promotions

o Transfers

o Disciplinary actions

o Termination of service

• Exclusion of Courts: Once established, the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts or High Courts
in such matters is barred. This exclusion is aimed at reducing the burden on regular courts.

• Structure: These tribunals can consist of both judicial and administrative members, ensuring
subject-specific expertise and efficient decision-making.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, enacted under this Article, established the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) to address the service-
related grievances of government employees.
3. Article 323B: Tribunals for Other Matters

While Article 323A is specific to service matters of public servants, Article 323B has a broader ambit.
It empowers both Parliament and State Legislatures to establish tribunals for adjudication in matters
other than service conditions.

Key Features of Article 323B:

• Legislative Competence: Unlike Article 323A, both Parliament and State Legislatures can
enact laws to establish tribunals for various matters.

• Scope of Tribunals: Tribunals under this provision can address issues like:

o Taxation

o Foreign exchange and import-export regulations

o Industrial and labor disputes

o Land reforms

o Ceiling on urban property

o Elections to legislatures

o Essential goods supply and distribution

o Rent control and tenancy rights

• Exclusion of Courts: Similar to Article 323A, the jurisdiction of regular courts can be excluded
for the matters assigned to these tribunals.

4. Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals

Administrative Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies with the following characteristics:

• Specialization: They comprise subject-matter experts and judicial members, ensuring

specialized handling of disputes.

• Flexibility: Tribunals are not bound by strict procedural laws like the Civil Procedure Code or
the Indian Evidence Act, enabling faster resolution of disputes.

• Judicial Independence: Though they function independently, their decisions are subject to
judicial review by the Supreme Court, preserving the rule of law.

• Efficiency: They are designed to ensure speedy and cost-effective delivery of justice.

5. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

The CAT, established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, adjudicates disputes concerning
the central government employees, except members of the armed forces. It has multiple benches
across the country, with its principal bench in New Delhi.

Features of CAT:

• Composition: It includes both judicial members (retired High Court judges) and
administrative members (officers with expertise in administration).
 • Jurisdiction: CAT handles disputes regarding recruitment, service conditions, promotions,
transfers, and disciplinary actions.

• Exclusion of Jurisdiction: The High Courts are barred from entertaining matters within CAT’s
jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court retains its appellate jurisdiction.

6. State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)

State governments can establish SATs under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to resolve
service disputes of state government employees. These tribunals operate on similar lines as the CAT,
but their jurisdiction is confined to state-level matters.

7. Judicial Review and Limitations

While Articles 323A and 323B permit the exclusion of regular courts' jurisdiction, the power of
judicial review vested in the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226
remains intact. This ensures that tribunals operate within constitutional bounds and do not violate
fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court's judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) reaffirmed the
significance of judicial review. The Court held:

• The power of judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be
excluded.

• Tribunals are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts.

• Decisions of tribunals can be reviewed by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.

8. Advantages of Administrative Tribunals

• Speedy Justice: Tribunals ensure quick disposal of cases due to their specialized nature and
simplified procedures.

• Expertise: Members with administrative experience bring practical insights, enhancing the
quality of judgments.

• Reduced Burden on Judiciary: By diverting service-related disputes and other specified

matters, tribunals ease the judiciary's workload.

• Cost-Effective: Litigants benefit from lower procedural costs and faster resolution.

9. Challenges and Criticisms

• Lack of Independence: Tribunals are sometimes criticized for lack of autonomy, as their
members are appointed by the executive.

• Limited Appeal Mechanism: The exclusion of High Court jurisdiction restricts direct recourse
for aggrieved parties.

• Overlapping Jurisdictions: Conflicts sometimes arise between tribunals and regular courts
regarding jurisdictional boundaries.

• Quality of Adjudication: Some tribunals face criticism for the quality of their decisions due
to insufficient expertise among members.

10. Reforms and Suggestions

 • Strengthening Independence: Ensuring transparency and independence in the appointment
process of tribunal members.

• Streamlining Functioning: Uniform procedures and standardized training for members can
improve efficiency.

• Increasing Accountability: Mechanisms for evaluating tribunal performance and member

accountability can enhance credibility.

Conclusion

Administrative Tribunals play a vital role in the Indian legal system by providing a specialized forum
for resolving disputes involving public servants and other specific matters. The constitutional
provisions under Articles 323A and 323B aim to achieve a balance between efficiency and judicial
independence. While they have significantly reduced the burden on regular courts, there is a need to
address their challenges to ensure they function as effective instruments of justice.

Composition and Structure of High Court of India

The High Courts are the principal civil courts of original jurisdiction in each state and union territory
of India. They also serve as appellate courts for decisions made by subordinate courts and tribunals.
The High Courts are established under Part VI, Chapter V of the Indian Constitution, which provides
for their composition, jurisdiction, powers, and functioning. Below is a detailed discussion of the
composition and structure of High Courts in India.

1. Constitutional Basis

The High Courts derive their authority from Articles 214 to 231 of the Constitution of India.

• Article 214: Establishes that every state shall have a High Court.

• Article 216: Provides for the composition of the High Court, including the Chief Justice and
other judges.

• Article 231: Enables the establishment of a common High Court for two or more states or for
a union territory.

2. Composition of the High Court

The High Court is composed of:

• The Chief Justice

• Other Judges

Appointment of Judges
The process of appointment of High Court judges is governed by Articles 217 and 224 of the
Constitution:

• Chief Justice: Appointed by the President of India after consulting the Chief Justice of India
and the Governor of the concerned state.

• Other Judges: Appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the
Governor of the state, and the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Qualifications for Appointment

To be eligible for appointment as a High Court judge, a person must satisfy the following criteria:

1. Be a citizen of India.

2. Have held a judicial office in India for at least ten years. OR Have been an advocate in one or
more High Courts for at least ten years.

Tenure

• High Court judges hold office until the age of 62.

• They can resign by submitting a letter to the President.

• They may be removed by the President on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity

through a process known as impeachment, which requires parliamentary approval.

Acting and Additional Judges

• Acting Judges: Appointed temporarily when the Chief Justice is unable to perform duties or
when a judge is absent.

• Additional Judges: Appointed for a period not exceeding two years to handle temporary
increases in workload or to clear the backlog of cases.

Retired Judges

The President can appoint a retired judge of a High Court to act temporarily as a judge of the same
or another High Court, provided the person consents.

3. Structure of the High Court

Each High Court has a well-defined structure, comprising various benches and administrative units.

Single and Division Benches

• Single Bench: A single judge hears cases of less complexity.

• Division Bench: Composed of two or more judges, it deals with more significant cases or
appeals.

Full Bench

When a legal matter of substantial importance arises, a full bench consisting of three or more judges
may be constituted to resolve it.
Jurisdictional Benches

In states with vast territories or high caseloads, High Courts may have permanent or circuit benches
in different locations to ensure accessibility:

• Permanent Benches: Established in major cities other than the principal seat of the High
Court.

• Circuit Benches: Temporary benches that operate on specific schedules.

4. Administrative Structure

The Chief Justice is the head of the High Court and oversees its functioning. Various administrative
offices support the efficient operation of the court, including:

• Registrar General: Responsible for court administration, record-keeping, and coordination.

• Judicial Registrars: Assist judges in case management and preparation.

• Court Masters: Ensure smooth functioning of court proceedings.

5. Jurisdiction and Powers

High Courts have a broad range of jurisdictions and powers, which shape their structure and
composition.

Original Jurisdiction

• Hear civil or criminal cases directly, especially those concerning fundamental rights, election
disputes, or larger monetary disputes.

Appellate Jurisdiction

• Hear appeals against decisions of subordinate courts in civil, criminal, and constitutional
matters.

Supervisory Jurisdiction

• Supervise and control all subordinate courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction under
Article 227.

Writ Jurisdiction

• Under Article 226, High Courts have the power to issue writs for enforcement of
fundamental and other rights.

Advisory Jurisdiction

• Some High Courts provide advisory opinions to the Governor on legal matters.

6. Common High Courts

Article 231 permits the establishment of a common High Court for two or more states or a state and
union territory. For instance:

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court serves both states and Chandigarh.

• The Bombay High Court serves Maharashtra, Goa, and the union territories of Dadra and
Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.

7. Challenges in the Composition and Functioning

• Vacancies and Delays: A high number of judicial vacancies often delays justice delivery.

• Overburdened Caseload: Increasing cases overburden the High Courts, necessitating

additional benches and judges.

• Transparency in Appointments: The collegium system has faced criticism for lack of
transparency and accountability.

• Infrastructure Deficiencies: Many High Courts operate with limited infrastructure,

hampering efficiency.

8. Suggestions for Improvement

• Timely Appointments: Filling judicial vacancies promptly can improve the court’s efficiency.

• Enhanced Infrastructure: Investing in better court facilities, digitization, and technology.

• Training for Judges: Regular training programs to equip judges with modern legal tools and
technologies.

• Increase in Benches: Establishing more permanent and circuit benches for accessibility and
reduced pendency.

Conclusion

The composition and structure of the High Courts reflect their critical role as the guardian of
constitutional rights and as appellate authorities. While their framework ensures an independent
and efficient judicial system, addressing challenges like vacancies and infrastructural gaps can
further enhance their effectiveness. High Courts continue to uphold justice, contributing to the
Indian judiciary's integrity and trustworthiness.

Jurisdiction of High Courts in India

High Courts are endowed with significant jurisdiction and authority, making them essential
components of the judiciary system in India. Their jurisdiction is extensive, covering various types of
matters. Below is an elaboration of the jurisdiction of High Courts in India:
1. Original Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction refers to the authority of the High Court to hear cases that are initiated directly
in the High Court rather than being appealed from lower courts. This includes:

(a) Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

• Under Article 226 of the Constitution, High Courts have the power to issue writs for the
enforcement of fundamental rights and for other legal rights.

• Types of writs include:

o Habeas Corpus

o Mandamus

o Prohibition

o Certiorari

o Quo Warranto

• This jurisdiction is wider than that of the Supreme Court (Article 32) as it covers not only
fundamental rights but also other legal rights.

(b) Election Disputes

• High Courts have original jurisdiction in disputes concerning the elections to state
legislatures and other local bodies.

(c) Cases Involving Higher Monetary Values

• Certain civil cases, such as those involving significant financial stakes, fall under the original
jurisdiction of the High Courts.

(d) Admiralty Jurisdiction

• In coastal states, High Courts have jurisdiction over maritime cases, including shipping
disputes and offenses occurring on the high seas.

2. Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdiction refers to the power to review and revise decisions made by lower courts. High
Courts hear appeals in both civil and criminal cases.

(a) Civil Appeals

• High Courts entertain appeals against the judgments and decrees of subordinate courts,
particularly in cases involving substantial questions of law or higher financial stakes.

(b) Criminal Appeals

 • Appeals against the verdicts of Sessions Courts and Additional Sessions Courts lie with the
High Court, especially in cases involving severe punishments like life imprisonment or the
death penalty.

(c) Appeals in Special Matters

• Appeals in matters concerning labor laws, family disputes, and consumer protection cases
may also be entertained, depending on statutory provisions.

3. Supervisory Jurisdiction

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, High Courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate
courts and tribunals within their territorial limits. This includes:

• Monitoring the proper conduct of judicial proceedings in lower courts.

• Ensuring that subordinate courts function within the framework of the law.

• Rectifying procedural irregularities and issuing directions to improve the administration of

justice.

4. Writ Jurisdiction

One of the most significant jurisdictions of High Courts is their ability to issue writs under Article 226.

Key Features:

• Scope: Writs can be issued not just for fundamental rights but also for other legal rights.

• Nature: High Courts can entertain petitions against the government, public authorities, or
private individuals in cases where their actions impact legal or fundamental rights.

• Importance: This makes High Courts guardians of the Constitution at the state level.

5. Constitutional Jurisdiction

High Courts have the authority to interpret and uphold the Constitution. They address questions of
constitutional validity of state laws and government actions. In case of conflict between a central
and state law, High Courts can provide interpretations, subject to the Supreme Court’s final
judgment.

6. Administrative and Disciplinary Jurisdiction

• High Courts exercise administrative control over all subordinate courts in their jurisdiction.

• This includes the appointment, transfer, and posting of judicial officers, as well as taking
disciplinary action when necessary.
7. Special Jurisdiction

Certain High Courts, particularly those established before independence, enjoy unique powers:

• Chartered High Courts (e.g., Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta High Courts) have original
jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases arising within their territorial limits.

• These High Courts retain their historical powers granted under the Letters Patent during the
British era.

8. Jurisdiction over Tribunals

High Courts have the power to hear appeals or review decisions of tribunals within their territorial
jurisdiction. This includes:

• Industrial and labor tribunals

• Income tax tribunals

• Consumer forums

• Land acquisition tribunals

9. Advisory Jurisdiction

In certain states, High Courts may advise the Governor on matters of constitutional law or statutory
interpretation, although this is not a frequent practice.

10. Territorial Jurisdiction

• The territorial jurisdiction of a High Court is determined by the state or union territory it
serves.

• Some High Courts have jurisdiction over more than one state or union territory, such as the
Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court.

11. Other Jurisdictions

(a) Contempt of Court

• High Courts have the authority to punish individuals or entities for contempt of court under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

(b) Guardian of Subordinate Judiciary

• High Courts act as guardians, ensuring that subordinate judiciary adheres to principles of
natural justice and procedural law.

(c) Miscellaneous
 • High Courts are responsible for conducting bar council elections and regulating legal
education and profession in their jurisdiction.

Supervisory Jurisdiction of the High Court

The supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts in India is conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution.
This jurisdiction enables the High Courts to supervise and oversee the functioning of all subordinate
courts and tribunals within their territorial limits. It is a significant power designed to ensure that
lower courts function in accordance with the law and principles of justice.

Key Features of Supervisory Jurisdiction

1. Subordinate Courts and Tribunals:

o Article 227 empowers High Courts to supervise all courts and tribunals within their
jurisdiction except military tribunals.

o Subordinate courts include district courts, sessions courts, magistrate courts, and
other special courts under state law.

2. Corrective Power:

o High Courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction to correct procedural errors or

jurisdictional lapses in subordinate courts.

o This is not an appellate jurisdiction but a supervisory one, focusing on procedural

fairness rather than re-examining case facts or decisions.

3. Administrative and Judicial Supervision:

o Administrative Supervision:

▪ High Courts oversee the appointment, transfer, promotion, and disciplinary

actions of judicial officers in subordinate courts.

▪ They ensure that proper infrastructure and staffing needs of lower courts
are addressed.

o Judicial Supervision:

▪ Includes ensuring proper conduct of judicial proceedings, adherence to legal

procedures, and the effective delivery of justice.

4. Not Limited to Appeals:

o Supervisory jurisdiction is distinct from appellate jurisdiction. It can be invoked even

when no appeal is pending, as long as procedural irregularities or other errors
require correction.