Administrative tribunal

Also called: Article 323A · Topic: Justice Delivery: Subordinate Courts, Tribunals, Legal Aid and Judicial Reforms · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

An administrative tribunal is a special body that Parliament can create by law under Article 323A. It decides disputes about the recruitment and service conditions of people in public service under the Union, the states, local bodies and public corporations. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is the best-known example.

It matters because these tribunals took a huge number of service cases away from overloaded High Courts. They are also at the centre of a long fight over how independent tribunals must be from the government.

Explanation

What kind of body it is

• It is a quasi-judicial body. This means it decides disputes the way a court does, but it is not a full court.
• It is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or by strict rules of evidence.

• It is bound by natural justice, which has two parts:

  • fair hearing: both sides must be heard;
  • no bias: no one can judge their own case.

• What it decides: service disputes of government employees, such as pay, promotion, seniority, transfer and dismissal.

• Why it exists:
• Expertise. Benches mix Judicial Members with Administrative Members, who are experienced in how government works.
• Speed and lower cost. It uses simpler procedure and less formality.
• Less load on High Courts, which were full of service cases.

How Article 323A works

• Only Parliament can make the law. State legislatures cannot create Article 323A tribunals.
• Levels:
• one tribunal for the Union;

• one for each state, or a joint tribunal for two or more states.

• No hierarchy. Article 323A does not provide for a lower tribunal with an appellate tribunal above it. Article 323B does.

• Who it covers: people in public service under the Union, the states, local bodies and public corporations.

Structure under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985

• Make-up (s.5):
• Each tribunal has a Chairman, plus as many Judicial and Administrative Members as the government decides.

• A bench normally has one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member [3].

• CAT benches: these normally sit at New Delhi (principal bench), Allahabad, Calcutta, Madras and New Bombay. The Centre can add other places by notification [3].

• State Administrative Tribunal (SAT):
• The Centre sets it up at a state's request, for that state's employees.
• Several states set up SATs and later abolished them.

Limits on its power (after 1997)

• It is a court of first instance (the first forum to hear a case). It cannot be the last word [1].
• It can test whether other laws are constitutional. It cannot decide whether its own parent Act is valid. Only the High Court can do that [1].
• Appeals go to a High Court division bench (a bench of two judges) with jurisdiction over the area. From there, a case can go to the Supreme Court [1].
• So it supplements the High Court. It does not replace it.

In the Constitution and practice

• How it began:
• 1969: the First Administrative Reforms Commission proposed Civil Services Tribunals at the national and state levels. They would hear cases on dismissal, removal and reduction in rank [1].
• 1974: the Law Commission proposed a high-powered tribunal to cut arrears in the High Courts [1].

• 1976: the Swaran Singh Committee found that the High Courts were overloaded with service cases. It recommended administrative tribunals at the national and state levels [1].

• The constitutional basis: the 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted Part XIVA, "Tribunals". This added Art. 323A (administrative tribunals) and Art. 323B (tribunals for other matters).

• The law: the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.
• The CAT has worked since 1 November 1985. Its principal bench is in New Delhi.

• The CAT does not cover:

  • the armed forces;
  • officers and servants of the Supreme Court, High Courts and subordinate courts;
  • secretariat staff of Parliament.

• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987):

• The Court upheld the 1985 Act.
• It called tribunals "effective substitutes" for High Courts, as long as they are as effective as the High Court [1].

• Appointments should be made in one of two ways [1]:

  • by the Centre after consulting the CJI; or
  • by a committee headed by the CJI or a sitting Supreme Court or High Court judge.

• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997, seven judges):

• What it struck down: Art. 323A(2)(d), Art. 323B(3)(d) and s.28 of the 1985 Act. These had taken away the power of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to hear such cases.
• Holding: judicial review is part of the basic structure.
  • Judicial review is the courts' power to strike down laws and government actions that break the Constitution. It works through Arts. 226/227 (High Courts) and Art. 32 (Supreme Court).
  • Basic structure means the core features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot destroy, even by amendment.
• Who should sit on tribunals: only persons with judicial experience [1].

• Who should run them: an independent body should manage tribunals. Until then, they should all be under one nodal ministry, such as the Ministry of Law [1].

• Later reforms that cover the CAT:

• Madras Bar Association (2020): the Court asked for a National Tribunals Commission (NTC) [1].
• Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [(2026) 2 SCC 1]: the Court struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021. It ordered an independent NTC to be set up [2].
• Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 (passed August 2026):
  • It sets up an NTC in which 3 of 5 members are judicial [2].
  • It gives members a five-year term or until age 67, whichever comes first [2].
  • It covers 16 tribunals, including the CAT and the SATs [2].

Don't confuse with

• Tribunals under Article 323B: these can be made by Parliament or state legislatures, for listed subjects such as taxes, land reforms, elections and rent. They can have a hierarchy. Article 323A tribunals are made by Parliament only, deal only with service matters and have no hierarchy.
• Armed Forces Tribunal: this is a separate tribunal. Armed forces personnel are excluded from the CAT.
• High Court: after L. Chandra Kumar (1997), an administrative tribunal is only a court of first instance. The High Court keeps judicial review over it under Arts. 226/227. The tribunal also cannot rule on its own parent Act [1].
• Swaran Singh Committee vs First Administrative Reforms Commission: the 1969 ARC first proposed Civil Services Tribunals [1]. The 1976 Swaran Singh Committee gave the advice that led directly to the 42nd Amendment [1].

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 323A is in Part XIVA, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976. Only Parliament can create these tribunals.
• CAT: set up under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985; working since 1 November 1985; principal bench at New Delhi.
• Trap: the CAT does not cover the armed forces, Supreme Court/High Court/subordinate court staff, or Parliament's secretariat staff.
• A SAT is set up by the Centre at a state's request, not by the state legislature itself.
• Case pairs: Sampath Kumar (1987) said tribunals are "effective substitutes". L. Chandra Kumar (1997) said they are supplements, struck down Art. 323A(2)(d), and sent appeals to a High Court division bench.
• A CAT bench normally has one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member (s.5) [3].

Mains Points

• Expertise vs independence:
• In a service dispute, the government is the employer, so it is a party to the case.
• The same government appoints the tribunal members and controls their tenure and funding. This breaks the "no bias" rule.
• The Court has repeatedly struck down such control: in Rojer Mathew (2019) and in Madras Bar Association (2020, 2021 and 2026) [1][2].

• Test the NTC under the 2026 Bill against these standards: a judicial majority, secure tenure, and freedom from the parent ministry [2].

• The extra appeal stage:

• L. Chandra Kumar protected judicial review, but cases now go CAT → High Court division bench → Supreme Court.
• This works against the speed that tribunals were created for.

• Possible reforms: direct appeals to the Supreme Court on points of law, or regional benches of the Supreme Court.

• Substitute or supplement:

• The move from Sampath Kumar (1987) to L. Chandra Kumar (1997) shows a balance.
• Parliament can set up specialised forums to reduce pressure on courts.
• But it cannot remove the High Courts' power of judicial review, because that is part of the basic structure.

Related concepts

• Tribunals under Article 323B
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• State Administrative Tribunal
• S.P. Sampath Kumar case
• L. Chandra Kumar case

Read more

• Tribunals: rationale and the constitutional framework