Tribunals in India: Roles, Jurisdictions, and Comparison with Courts

• Establishment of tribunals for public service of the Centre, the States, local bodies, public corporations and other public authorities.
• The adjudication of disputes relating to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
• Established only by Parliament and not by state legislatures.
• Only one tribunal for the Centre and one for each state or two or more states may be established.
• No question of the hierarchy of tribunals arises.

• Establishment of tribunals for certain other matters. Example: Taxation, Land reforms etc.
• Can be established both by Parliament and State Legislatures w.r.t. matters under their legislative competence.
• Hierarchy of tribunals may be created.

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

• It was set up in 1985 with the principal bench at New Delhi and additional benches in different states.

• The appointment of Chairman and Members in the CAT is made by the central government on the basis of recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee chaired by the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court, who is nominated by the Chief Justice of India.

• Multi Member Body: 1 Chairperson + 69 members.

• Chairperson: 4 years or age of 70 years.
• Members: 4 years or age of 67 years.

• Original Jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of public servants
  • Extends to the All-India services, Central civil services and civil posts under the Centre and Civilian employees of defense services. 
  • However, the members of the defence forces, officers and servants of the Supreme Court and the secretarial staff of the Parliament are not covered by it.

• Principal bench at Delhi and additional 19 regular benches (17 at the seats of HC + 2 at Jaipur and Lucknow respectively).
• Not bound by the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. It is guided by the Principles of Natural Justice.
• Members drawn from the Judicial + Administrative Streams. 
  • But, a person who has not completed the age of 50 years is not eligible for appointment as a Chairman or Member.
• Allows applicants to appear either in person or through a lawyer.
• Principal of Natural Justice: Not bounded by the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 but guided by the principles of natural justice.

State Administrative Tribunal (SAT)

• The chairman and members of the SAT’s are appointed by the central government on the recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee shared by the Chief Justice of the High Court of the concerned state.

• SATs have been set up in Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala.
• Jurisdiction: Extends to recruitment and all service matters of state government employees.
• The act also makes a provision for setting up of joint administrative tribunal (JAT) for two or more states
  • The chairman and members of a JAT are appointed by the president in consultation with the governors of the concerned states.

Chandra Kumar Case: The SC declared those provisions of these two articles which excluded the jurisdiction of the HC and the SC as unconstitutional. 

• Hence, judicial remedies are now available against the orders of these tribunals. 
• It laid down that appeals against the orders of the CAT shall lie before the division bench of the concerned HC.

• Part of the traditional judicial system.

• An agency created by the statute and invested with judicial power.

• The Civil Courts have judicial power to try all suits of a civil nature unless the cognizance is expressly barred.

• Tribunal (Quasi-judicial bodies) have the power to try cases of special matters which are conferred on them by statutes.

• Judges of the ordinary courts of law are independent of the executive in respect of their tenure, terms and conditions of service etc. The Judiciary is independent of the Executive.

• Tenure, terms and conditions of the services of the members of the Administrative Tribunal are entirely in the hands of the Executive.

• A court of law can decide the vires of legislation.

• The Administrative Tribunal cannot do so.

• A court of law is bound by all the rules of evidence and procedure.

• An Administrative Tribunal is not bound by rules but bound by the principles of nature of Justice.

• The presiding officer of the court of law is trained in law and the legal profession.

• The president or a member of the Tribunal may not be trained as well in law. He may be an expert in the field of Administrative matters.

• A court must decide all questions objectively on the basis of evidence and materials on record.

• Decisions by the Administrative Tribunal may be subjective rather than objective. Administrative Tribunal may decide questions by taking into account departmental policy.