Administrative Law
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Scheme, Jurisdiction, Bar of Other Courts and the Provisions Read Down
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted under Article 323A to take service litigation out of the High Courts. It established the Central Administrative Tribunal for the services of the Union, provided for State Administrative Tribunals on a State's request, transferred the pending service cases, and barred the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court. In its original form the Act was an attempt to create a self-contained adjudicatory system outside the ordinary judicial hierarchy. It has survived, but not intact: its composition provisions were modified to secure independence, its exclusionary provision was struck down, and its practical effect today is to route service litigation through a tribunal that remains under High Court supervision. This topic sets out the scheme of the Act and what the courts have made of it.
1. Object and Structure
The Act was passed to relieve the High Courts of a very large volume of service litigation, to provide a speedier and cheaper forum with members familiar with service law and administration, and to bring uniformity to the adjudication of service disputes across the country. It applies to persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, to All India Services, and to services of a State where the State so requests.
The scheme of the Act in outline Section 4 provides for the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal and, on a request from a State, of a State Administrative Tribunal, and for a Joint Administrative Tribunal for two or more States. Section 5 provides for the composition of benches, ordinarily one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member. Section 6 prescribes qualifications for the Chairman and Members. Section 8 deals with the term of office and section 9 with resignation and removal. Section 14 confers jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal over service matters of the Union; section 15 does the same for State Administrative Tribunals; section 16 deals with Joint Tribunals. Section 19 governs applications to the Tribunal. Section 20 requires exhaustion of departmental remedies before an application is entertained. Section 21 prescribes limitation, ordinarily one year. Section 22 provides that the Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure but is guided by the principles of natural justice, with powers of a civil court in specified respects. Section 24 deals with interim orders. Section 27 makes orders of the Tribunal final and binding. Section 28, which excluded the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136, was struck down. |
2. Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction under section 14 extends to all service matters concerning recruitment and conditions of service, and is exclusive in its field, so that a person aggrieved must approach the Tribunal rather than a civil court. It covers appointment, seniority, promotion, transfer, pay and allowances, disciplinary proceedings, termination, retirement and pension, and the interpretation and validity of service rules.
Two limits are built into the Act itself. Section 20 requires the applicant to have exhausted the remedies available under the relevant service rules before the Tribunal entertains his application, unless no such remedy is provided or the departmental authority has failed to decide within six months. Section 21 prescribes a period of limitation, ordinarily one year from the date of the final order or of the rejection of the departmental remedy, with power to condone delay on sufficient cause. Certain categories, notably members of the armed forces, are excluded from the Act's operation.
3. Power to Decide the Validity of Rules
📖 J.B. Chopra v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 422 Facts: A question arose before the Central Administrative Tribunal as to whether service rules under which an order had been passed were valid, the contention being that they offended Articles 14 and 16. It was objected that a tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, being a creature of statute, could not pronounce upon the constitutional validity of rules, and that such a question could be decided only by the High Court or the Supreme Court. Held: The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal has the power to decide the constitutional validity of service rules and regulations. Since the Tribunal was established under Article 323A as a substitute for the High Court in service matters, and since the Act transferred to it the jurisdiction the High Court formerly exercised under Article 226 in that field, it must possess the power to grant the relief the High Court could have granted, including the power to test subordinate legislation against the fundamental rights and to strike it down if it is found to violate Articles 14 and 16. To hold otherwise would compel a litigant to go to the Tribunal for relief and to the High Court for the ground on which the relief depends, fragmenting a single dispute. Ratio: A tribunal substituting for the High Court in a defined field inherits the power to test the validity of subordinate legislation in that field, since the power to grant relief carries the power to decide the questions on which the relief turns. |
The limit of that principle was fixed in L. Chandra Kumar: a tribunal may decide the constitutional validity of rules, regulations and notifications, but it cannot pronounce on the validity of the statute that created it, for the obvious reason that a body cannot sit in judgment on the source of its own existence. A challenge to the vires of the parent Act must go to the High Court.
4. The Provisions Struck Down or Modified
📖 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 Facts: Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act excluded the jurisdiction of all courts, including the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, in respect of matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, leaving only the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136. The validity of that section, and of the constitutional clauses that authorised it, came before a seven-Judge Bench. Held: The Court struck down section 28, together with clause 2(d) of Article 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B, so far as they excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts. Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded even by amendment. The Court held that the Tribunal remains a court of first instance with exclusive original jurisdiction, so that a litigant must approach it and cannot move the High Court directly; but every decision of the Tribunal is subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, and no direct appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Article 136 bypassing the High Court. The Court further held that the Tribunal may decide the vires of subordinate legislation but not of its own parent statute, and recommended that a single nodal Ministry, preferably the Ministry of Law, take charge of tribunals so that they are not administered by the department that litigates before them. Ratio: The exclusionary provision in the Act is void; the Tribunal is a court of first instance under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, and it cannot test the vires of the Act that created it. |
The composition provisions had already been modified in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124, which held that a tribunal may displace the High Court only if it is an effective substitute, requiring judicial competence in its members and security of tenure comparable to that of the judges whose jurisdiction it replaces. The Act was upheld only as modified in the manner the Court directed, principally in the mode of appointment of the Chairman and Members.
5. The Act as It Now Operates
Provision | Position today |
|---|---|
Section 14, jurisdiction over service matters | Intact and exclusive as a forum of first instance |
Section 19, applications | Intact; the applicant goes to the Tribunal, not to the High Court |
Section 20, exhaustion of departmental remedies | Intact, subject to the six-month provision |
Section 21, limitation of one year | Intact, with power to condone delay |
Section 22, procedure | Intact; not bound by the Code, guided by natural justice |
Section 27, finality of orders | Operates subject to High Court review under Articles 226 and 227 |
Section 28, exclusion of courts | Struck down (L. Chandra Kumar) |
Power to test service rules | Available (J.B. Chopra) |
Power to test the vires of the 1985 Act itself | Not available; that goes to the High Court |
Appeal or review | Writ petition before a Division Bench of the High Court; no direct Article 136 route |
⚠ The Act achieved its forum, not its finality It is worth being precise about what the 1985 Act still does and does not do. It succeeded in creating an exclusive forum: a government servant with a service grievance goes to the Tribunal, not to a civil court and not, in the first instance, to the High Court, and that remains the position. It failed in the more ambitious object of making that forum final. Section 28 was meant to close the High Court door entirely, and after L. Chandra Kumar every tribunal order is open to challenge before a Division Bench. The practical result is a system with one more tier than the drafters intended, which is one of the standing criticisms of tribunalisation in service matters. |
6. The Position in Summary
- The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted under Article 323A to transfer service litigation from the High Courts to a specialised tribunal, establishing the Central Administrative Tribunal and enabling State and Joint Tribunals.
- Its jurisdiction under section 14 covers recruitment and conditions of service and is exclusive, subject to exhaustion of departmental remedies under section 20 and limitation under section 21.
- The Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure but is guided by natural justice, and has the powers of a civil court in specified respects (section 22).
- It may decide the constitutional validity of service rules and regulations (J.B. Chopra) but not of its own parent statute.
- Section 28 was struck down; the Tribunal is a court of first instance whose orders are subject to review by a Division Bench of the High Court, with no direct route to the Supreme Court (L. Chandra Kumar), and its composition provisions were modified to secure independence (S.P. Sampath Kumar).
7. Related Topics and Provisions
- Constitutional Provisions on Tribunals (Topic 125): Articles 323A and 323B.
- Central Administrative Tribunal (Topic 127): jurisdiction, procedure, independence and tribunalisation.
- Administrative Tribunals (Topic 124): the general concept and comparison with courts.
- Natural Justice in Disciplinary Proceedings (Topic 81) and Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings (Topic 99): the substantive law applied by the Tribunal.
- Writ of Certiorari (Topic 109): the remedy against tribunal orders.
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 16, 32, 136, 226, 227, 309, 311 and 323A; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.