Central Administrative Tribunal

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

Meaning

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is a special body set up under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, which Parliament made under Article 323A. It decides disputes about the recruitment and service conditions of central government employees. It has worked since 1 November 1985, and its principal bench is in New Delhi.

It matters because it took thousands of service cases away from the overloaded High Courts. It is also at the centre of a long fight over how independent tribunals should be from the government.

Explanation

How the CAT works

• What it hears: service disputes of central government employees, such as pay, promotion, seniority, transfer and dismissal.
• Quasi-judicial body (a body that decides disputes like a court but 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. Both sides must get a fair hearing, and there must be no bias.

• Why it was set up:

• Speed: its procedure is simpler, so cases should end sooner.
• Lower cost and less formality for the employee.
• Expertise: administrative experts sit on the bench with judges.
• Less load on High Courts, which were full of service cases.

Make-up and benches (Section 5 of the 1985 Act)

• Each tribunal has a Chairman, plus as many Judicial Members and Administrative Members as the government decides.
• A bench normally has one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member [3].
• CAT benches normally sit at New Delhi (principal bench), Allahabad, Calcutta, Madras and New Bombay. The Centre can add other places by notification [3].
• Under R. Gandhi (2010):
• technical members must not outnumber judicial members on any bench;
• only people with a judicial background can be judicial members [1].

Who is covered and who is not

• Covered: central government employees.
• Not covered:
• the armed forces;
• officers and servants of the Supreme Court, the High Courts and subordinate courts;
• secretariat staff of Parliament.

Limits on its power (after 1997)

• The CAT is a court of first instance. This means it is the first forum to hear a case, but not the last word [1].
• It can decide whether other laws follow the Constitution. It cannot decide whether its own parent Act is valid. Only the High Court can do that [1].
• How appeals work:
• At first, the 1985 Act allowed an appeal only to the Supreme Court.
• Now a CAT order goes first to a division bench (two judges) of the High Court for that area [1].
• After that, it can go to the Supreme Court.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional base: Article 323A, in Part XIVA ("Tribunals"). Part XIVA was added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976.
• Under Art. 323A, only Parliament can set up administrative tribunals.
• It can create one tribunal for the Union, and one for each state or a joint one for two or more states.

• There is no hierarchy of tribunals under Art. 323A.

• The road to the CAT:

• 1969: the First Administrative Reforms Commission proposed Civil Services Tribunals at the national and state levels [1].
• 1976: the Swaran Singh Committee found the High Courts overloaded with service cases. It recommended administrative tribunals at the national and state levels [1].

• 1985: Parliament passed the Administrative Tribunals Act, and the CAT began work on 1 November 1985.

• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (decided 1986, reported 1987):

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

• Appointments were to be made after consulting the Chief Justice of India, or by a high-powered committee headed by the CJI or a sitting Supreme Court or High Court judge [1].

• 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.
• What it held: judicial review is part of the basic structure. Judicial review is the power of courts 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.
• What changed: tribunals became supplements, not substitutes, for High Courts.

• Effect: a case now goes CAT → High Court division bench → Supreme Court. This added a new appeal step.

• Later reforms affecting the CAT:

• Rojer Mathew (2019): short terms with the chance of re-appointment let the government control tribunals [1].
• Madras Bar Association (2020): the Court asked for a National Tribunals Commission (NTC). It fixed a five-year term, with an age limit of 70 for the Chairperson and 67 for other members [1].
• Madras Bar Association [(2026) 2 SCC 1]: the Court struck down parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 and ordered an independent NTC [2].
• Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026:
  • It sets up an NTC with 3 of its 5 members judicial.
  • It gives members a five-year term or until age 67, whichever comes first.
  • It covers 16 tribunals, including the CAT and the SATs [2].

Don't confuse with

• State Administrative Tribunal (SAT): it hears service cases of a state's employees. The Centre sets it up at the state's request, and two or more states can share a joint tribunal. The CAT hears cases of central employees.
• Tribunals under Art. 323B: these can be set up by Parliament or state legislatures on subjects like taxes, land reforms, elections and rent. A hierarchy is possible. The CAT comes under Art. 323A, which is Parliament only, with no hierarchy.
• Armed Forces Tribunal: the armed forces are kept out of the CAT, so their service disputes do not go to the CAT.
• High Court under Arts. 226/227: it is a constitutional court with the final power of judicial review over the CAT. The CAT is a statutory body (created by an ordinary law). It cannot rule on its own parent Act [1].

Prelims Hooks

• CAT started on 1 November 1985 under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. Its principal bench is in New Delhi.
• Art. 323A (added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976, on the advice of the Swaran Singh Committee): Parliament only, service matters, no hierarchy.
• Trap: the CAT does not cover the armed forces, Supreme Court/High Court/subordinate court staff or Parliament's secretariat staff.
• Sampath Kumar (1987): tribunals are "effective substitutes" for High Courts. L. Chandra Kumar (1997): they are supplements, and judicial review (Arts. 32, 226/227) is basic structure.
• L. Chandra Kumar struck down Art. 323A(2)(d) and s.28 of the 1985 Act. Appeals from the CAT now go to a High Court division bench.
• A CAT bench normally has one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member [3].

Mains Points

• Independence vs government control: in a CAT case, the government is usually the employer and a party to the dispute. When the same government also controls members' appointment, tenure and pay, the "no bias" rule is at risk. That is why the Court acted in Sampath Kumar, Rojer Mathew (2019) and Madras Bar Association (2020, 2026) [1][2]. The 2026 Bill's NTC, with its judicial majority, can be judged against these standards [2].
• Speed vs judicial review: L. Chandra Kumar protected judicial review, but it added a High Court stage. A service case now passes through three forums, which works against the speed the CAT was meant to bring. Reform ideas include direct appeals to the Supreme Court on points of law or regional benches of the Supreme Court.
• Judicial vs administrative members: administrative members bring knowledge of service rules. But L. Chandra Kumar warned that giving more weight to non-judicial members makes a tribunal weaker than the High Court it replaces [1]. R. Gandhi (2010) settled this: technical members must not outnumber judicial members [1].

Related concepts

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

Read more

• Tribunals: rationale and the constitutional framework