Administrative Adjudication: Various types of Administrative Tribunals in India

ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

Administrative adjudication is a name give to the administrative exercise of judicial functions. It is a name given to the various ways of deciding disputes outside the ordinary courts. Administrative adjudication is constitutional, though it is a negation of the principle of Separation of Powers. Administrative adjudication is the participation or involvement of the executive arm of government (administrative agencies) in judicial function. Through the instrumentality of administrative adjudication, administrative agencies can pass authoritative and appealable decisions.

Administrative adjudication in india

In India, administrative adjudication increased after independence and several welfare lawswere promulgated which vested the power on deciding various issues in the hands of theadministration. The modern Indian Republic was born a Welfare State and thus the burden onthe government to provide a host of welfare Services to the people was immense. Thesequasi-judicial powers acquired by the administration led to a huge number of cases withrespect to the manner in which these administrative bodies arrived at their decisions.

Tribunals/”>Administrative Tribunals in India

In India Growth of administrative tribunals has been rather haphazard. They have come into existence as or when required. Though their number has been gradually multiplying, yet they have never been organized into a coherent system. Over 3,000 such courts exist in India. Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Railway Rates Tribunal, Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals, Wage Boards, Compensation Tribunals, Election Tribunals, Central Administrative Tribunal, Rent Tribunals are some of the examples of such Tribunals.

Administrative tribunals are constituted with amendment to Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution. These are constituted to exclusively deal with service matters of the civil servants. However, Administrative Tribunal is a substitute to High Court. These tribunals are quasi-judicial in nature but assigned with adjudicate the matters referred before them. It is a sign of welfare state. As many tribunals are working today, regulatory mechanism is very much needed. The tribunals are established to avoid regular court approach by civil servants. The only strict restriction imposed on them is to follow Justice/”>Principles Of Natural Justice, but the tribunals started to give their own construction to interpret the Principles of Natural Justice. This is because there are no settled definite principles to say these are the fundamental principles of Natural Justice.

Central Administrative Tribunal: ARTICLE 323 A added in the Constitution of India in 1985 provides for the setting up of Administrative Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes relating to service matters of persons employed to public services and posts in the Central Government and the States. In Pursuance of the above amendment the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted. The CAT enjoys the status and powers of a High Court in respect of service matters Appeals against its orders He to The Supreme Court only. It has 17 regular Benches operating at the principal seats of High Court. These regular Benches also hold circuit sittings at other seats of High Courts.

The difference between CAT and ordinary courts is as follows:

The Tribunal is free from the shackles of many of the technicalities of the ordinal courts in respect of hearing of evidence and pleading by the lawyers and the presentation of the case.
The government can present its case through the departmental officers or legal practitioners.
Only a nominal fee is to be paid by the petitioner for filing an application before the Tribunal.

The members of the Administrative Tribunals are drawn from the administrative stream also, whereas the judges of ordinary courts belong to the legal stream.

State administrative tribunal

Article 323 B empowers the state legislatures to set up tribunals for various matters. The matters to be covered by such tribunals are as follows:

Levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax

Matters connected with Land reforms covered by Article 31A

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the Central Government shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal consisting of an many Judicial Members and Accountant members as it thinks fit to exercise the powers and functions conferred on the Tribunal by the Act. Under the Act, a judicial Member shall be a person, who has held a judicial office for at least ten years or has been a Member of the Central Legal Services and has held a post in Grade II of that service or any equivalent or higher post for at least three years or who has been an Advocate for at least ten years.

The powers and functions of the Tribunal are exercised and discharged by the Bench constituted from amongst the members of the Tribunal. A Bench consists of one Judicial Member and one Accountant Member. The Benches of the Tribunal have been constituted in different parts of the country presently there are 63 benches.

Advantages of Administrative Tribunals

Administrative adjudication is a dynamic system of administration, which serves, more adequately than any other method, the varied and complex needs of the modern Society. The main advantages of the administrative tribunals are as follows:
Administrative adjudication has brought about flexibility and adaptability in the judicial as well as administrative tribunals.
In the fast changing world of today, administrative tribunals are not only the most appropriated means of administrative action, but also the most effective means of giving fair justice to the individuals.
Administrative justice ensures cheap and quick justice. As against this, procedure in the law courts is long and cumbersome and litigation is costly.
The system also gives the much-needed relief to ordinary courts of law, which are already overburdened with numerous suits.

Disadvantages of Administrative Tribunals

Administrative adjudication is a negation of Rule of Law. Rule of Law ensures Equality before law for everybody and the supremacy of ordinary law and due procedure of law over governmental arbitrariness.
Administrative tribunals have in most cases, no set procedures and sometimes they violate even the principles of natural justice.
Administrative tribunals often hold summary trials and they do not follow any precedents. As such it is not possible to predict the course of future decisions.

Administrative Tribunals in India

Administrative tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies that are established by the government to hear appeals against orders passed by various government authorities. They are independent of the executive and the judiciary, and their decisions are binding on the government.

There are a number of different types of administrative tribunals in India, each with its own jurisdiction. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by various central government authorities, including the Central Vigilance Commission, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Personnel and Training. The State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) have jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by various State Government authorities, including The State Public Service Commission, the State Vigilance Commission, and the State Bureau of Investigation. The Railway Claims Tribunals (RCTs) have jurisdiction to hear claims for compensation against the Indian Railways. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunals (CESTAT) have jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the Customs Commissioner, the Customs Appellate Tribunal, and the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITATs) have jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has jurisdiction to hear environmental matters, including those relating to Air Pollution, Water Pollution, and Noise Pollution. The Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) has jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the Competition Commission Of India. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. The Insurance Appellate Tribunal (IAT) has jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) has jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has jurisdiction to hear complaints against traders and service providers. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (SCDCs) have jurisdiction to hear complaints against traders and service providers within their respective states.

Administrative tribunals play an important role in ensuring that the government acts fairly and in accordance with the law. They provide a forum for citizens to challenge government decisions and to seek redress for grievances. They also help to reduce the burden on the courts by hearing cases that do not require a full-blown judicial hearing.

Administrative tribunals are generally considered to be more efficient and less expensive than the courts. They are also more specialized, which means that they can often deal with cases more quickly and effectively. However, administrative tribunals have also been criticized for being too bureaucratic and for not being independent enough from the government.

Despite these criticisms, administrative tribunals remain an important part of the Indian legal system. They provide a valuable service to citizens and help to ensure that the government acts fairly and in accordance with the law.

What is an administrative tribunal?

An administrative tribunal is a quasi-judicial body that is established by the government to adjudicate on disputes between the government and individuals.

What are the different types of administrative tribunals in India?

There are many different types of administrative tribunals in India, but some of the most common include:

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
The State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (SCCDRCs)

What are the powers of administrative tribunals?

Administrative tribunals have the power to hear and decide cases involving a wide range of matters, including:

Public service matters
Taxation matters
Social security matters
Consumer protection matters

What are the advantages of using administrative tribunals?

There are a number of advantages to using administrative tribunals, including:

They are often more specialized than courts, and can therefore provide a more expert decision-making process.
They are often quicker and cheaper than courts.
They are often more accessible to ordinary people than courts.

What are the disadvantages of using administrative tribunals?

There are a number of disadvantages to using administrative tribunals, including:

They may not be as independent as courts.
They may not be as transparent as courts.
They may not be as accountable as courts.

What is the future of administrative tribunals?

The future of administrative tribunals is uncertain. Some people believe that they should be abolished and replaced by courts, while others believe that they should be reformed to make them more independent, transparent, and accountable.

Which of the following is not an administrative tribunal in India?
(A) Central Administrative Tribunal
(B) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(C) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(D) Railway Claims Tribunal
Which of the following is the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal?
(A) To hear and decide cases relating to service matters of Central Government employees
(B) To hear and decide cases relating to service matters of State Government employees
(C) To hear and decide cases relating to service matters of both Central and State Government employees
(D) To hear and decide cases relating to service matters of employees of Public Sector Undertakings
Which of the following is the jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission?
(A) To hear and decide cases relating to disputes between consumers and traders
(B) To hear and decide cases relating to disputes between consumers and manufacturers
(C) To hear and decide cases relating to disputes between consumers and service providers
(D) To hear and decide cases relating to all of the above
Which of the following is the jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission?
(A) To hear and decide cases relating to disputes between consumers and traders within the State
(B) To hear and decide cases relating to disputes between consumers and manufacturers within the State
(C) To hear and decide cases relating to disputes between consumers and service providers within the State
(D) To hear and decide cases relating to all of the above
Which of the following is the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal?
(A) To hear and decide cases relating to claims for compensation for death, injury or damage to property caused by accidents on railways
(B) To hear and decide cases relating to claims for compensation for delay in running of trains
(C) To hear and decide cases relating to claims for compensation for cancellation of trains
(D) To hear and decide cases relating to all of the above