Project on Administrative Tribunals

INTRODUCTION:

There has been a phenomenal increase in the functions of the government, which has lent enormous powers to the executive and also led to increase in the legislative output. This has led to more litigation, restrictions on the freedom of the individuals and constant frictions between them and the authority. Administrative tribunals have emerged not only in India but also in many other countries with the objective of providing a new type of justice - public good oriented justice. These tribunals manned by technical experts, with flexibility in operations, informality in procedures have gained importance in the adjudication process.

PUBLIC GOOD ORIENTED JUSTICE: In the modem state, Public Good Oriented Justice provides a new type of justice where the individuals are able to assert themselves freely, welfare of the community is kept in view and the system functions like a social institution existing for achieving social end.

ADMINITRATIVE LAW:

Administrative law covers the entire gamut of public administration and includes the statutes, charters, rules, regulations, procedures, decisions etc. required for smooth running of administration. According to Jennings, administrative law is the law relating to the administration. It determines the organization, powers and duties of administrative authorities. Wade remarks that administrative law is concerned with the operation and control of the powers of administrative authorities.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

In pursuance of administrative law, there can arise disputes. These disputes require adjudication. There are administrative agencies other than the courts to adjudicate such issues arising in the course of day to day administration.

Administrative adjudication is the resolution of quasi-judicial matters by administrative agencies or commissions established for the purpose. A number of technical issues and disputes emerge in the day-to-day administration. The ordinary courts do not have the technical expertise and it becomes quite dilatory and costly to dispense with cases of administrative nature. It is only the administrative agencies, which are capable of looking into the matters of administrative exigencies. These administrative agencies with the power to adjudicate the disputes arising out of administrative action or inaction are called administrative tribunals.

According to Servai, 'the development of administrative law in a welfare state has made administrative tribunals a necessity'. In India, and in many other countries, there has been a steady proliferation of administrative tribunals of various kinds. They have, indeed, become a permanent part of the law adjudication machinery of the country. As a system of adjudication they have come to stay, and their number is constantly on the increase.

Administrative tribunals are authorities outside the ordinary court system, which interpret and apply the laws when acts of public administration are questioned in formal suits by the courts or by other established methods. In other words, they are agencies created by specific enactments to adjudicate upon disputes that may arise in the course of implementation of the provisions of relevant enactments. They are not a court nor are they an executive body. Rather they are a mixture of both. They are judicial in the sense that the tribunals have to decide facts and apply them impartially, without considering executive policy. They are administrative because the reasons for preferring them to the ordinary courts of law are administrative reasons. They are established by the executive in accordance with statutory provisions. They are required to act judicially and perform quasi-judicial functions. The proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings and in certain procedural matters they have powers of a civil court. They are not bound by the elaborate rules of evidence or procedures governing the ordinary courts. They are independent bodies and are only required to follow the procedure prescribed by the relevant law and observe the principles of 'Natural Justice'.

They do not follow the technicalities of rules of procedure and evidence prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Evidence Act respectively. The administrative tribunals may be more appropriately defined as specially constituted authorities established by law to settle the disputes between the citizen and administration. The administrative tribunals are the instruments for the application of administrative law. They have distinct advantage over the ordinary courts because they ensure cheapness, accessibility, freedom from technicality, expedition and expert knowledge of the particular subject. The involvement of experts in administration in regulating administrative actions is necessary to provide justice to the citizens, without sacrificing the institutional needs. What is involved is basically the relative position of two values, that is, the protection of the individual and his legitimate interests and the effective attainment of public purpose.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

· Reasons for the establishment of administrative tribunals and whether such establishment served the purpose?

· Changes brought by the amendment act of 2006.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

This study undertakes a critical examination of 'tribunal' as a concept and suggests the reasons for establishment of tribunals. It analyses the statutory provisions to identify the types of tribunals, their powers, procedures, advantages and disadvantages of tribunals and also its safeguards, etc. Tribunals are alternatives to courts and they contribute to increasing the access to grievance redressal as well as to adjudication of disputes.

CONTENT ANALYSIS

REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

There are many reasons for the growth of administrative tribunals. Some of these are:
The administrative tribunals, rendering administrative justice, is a by-product of the Welfare State. In the 18th and 19th centuries when 'laissez faire' theory held sway, the law courts emerged as the custodians of the rights and liberties of the individual citizens. Sometimes they protected the rights of all citizens at the cost of state authority. With the emergence of Welfare State, social interest began to be given precedence over the individual rights. With the development of collective control over the conditions of employment, manner of living and the elementary necessities of the people, there has arisen the need for a technique of adjudication better fitted to respond to the social requirements of the time than the elaborate and costly system of decision making provided by the courts of law. In brief, 'judicialisation of administration' proved a potential instrument for enforcing social policy and legislation.
In view of the rapid growth and expansion of industry, trade and commerce, ordinary law courts are not in a position to cope up with the work-load. With the result, enormous delay in deciding cases either way, takes place. Therefore, a number of administrative tribunals have been established in the country, which can do the work more rapidly, more cheaply and more efficiently than the ordinary courts.
Law courts, on account of their elaborate procedures, legalistic fronts and attitudes can hardly render justice to the parties concerned, in technical cases. Ordinary judges, brought up in the traditions of law and jurisprudence, are not capable enough to understand technical problems, which crop up in the wake of modem complex economic and social processes. Only administrators having expert knowledge can tackle such problems judiciously. To meet this requirement, a number of administrative tribunals have come into existence.
A good number of situations are such that they require quick and firm action. Otherwise the interests of the people may be jeopardized. For instance, ensuring of safety measures in local mines, prevention of illegal transactions in foreign exchange and unfair business practices necessitate prompt action. Such cases, if are to be dealt with in the ordinary courts of law, would cause immense loss to the state exchequer and undermine national interest. However, the administrative courts presided over by the experts would ensure prompt and fair action.


TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

There are different types of administrative tribunals, which are governed by the statues, rules, and regulations of the Central Government as well as State Governments. The various types of administrative tribunals include:

Central Administrative Tribunal (Cat)

The enactment of Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985 opened a new chapter in administering justice to the aggrieved government servants. It owes its origin to Article 323 A of the Constitution which empowers the Central Government to set up by an Act of Parliament, the Administrative Tribunals for adjudication of disputes and complains with respective recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the public services and posts in connection with the Union and the States.

The Tribunals enjoy the powers of the High Court in respect of service matters of the employees covered by the Act. They are not bound by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure, but have to abide by the Principles of Natural Justice. They are distinguished from the ordinary courts with regard to their jurisdiction and procedures. This makes them free from the shackles of the ordinary courts and enables them to provide speedy and inexpensive justice.

The Act provides for the establishment of Central Administrative Tribunal and State Administrative Tribunals. The CAT was established in 1985. The Tribunal consists of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members. These Members are drawn from the judicial as well as the administrative streams. The appeal against the decisions of the CAT lies with the Supreme Court of India.

Customs And Excise Revenue Appellate Tribunal (Cerat)

The Parliament passed the CERAT Act to settle the disputes, complaints or offences with regard to customs and excise revenue. Appeals from the orders of the CERAT lies with the Supreme Court.

Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (Mrtpc)

In 1969, the Parliament enacted the MRTPC Act by which the Monopolies Commission was set up and given powers to entertain complaints regarding monopolistic and restrictive trade practices and later unfair trade practices by the Amendment Act in 1984. With the introduction of new Industrial Policy (1991), a substantial programme of deregulation has been launched. Industrial licensing has been abolished for all items except for a short list of six industries related to security, strategic or environmental concerns. The MRTP Act has since been amended in order to eliminate the need to seek prior approval of government for expansion of the present industrial units and establishment of new industries by large companies. A significant number of industries had earlier been reserved for the public sector. The ones reserved for the public sector include arms and ammunition and official items of defence equipment, Railway Transport etc... Private sector participation can be invited on discriminatory basis even in some of these areas. Under the amended MRTP Act, a three-tier system for settling consumer complaints has been provided. This operates as District Level Forum at the district level, State Commissions at the state levels and National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission at the national level. The National Commission has power to hear the appeals against State Commissions and also has revisional powers. Appeal from the National Commission lies to the Supreme Court.

Election Commission (Ec)

The Election Commission is a tribunal for adjudication of matters pertaining to the allotment of election symbols to parties and similar other problems. The decision of the commission can be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (Ferab)

The Board has been set up under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A person who is aggrieved by an order of adjudication for causing breach or committing offences under the Act can file an appeal before the FERAB.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

This tribunal has been constituted under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has its benches in various cities and appeals can be filed before it by an aggrieved personals against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Director of Income Tax. An appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies to the High Court. An appeal also lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court deems fit.

Railway Rates Tribunal

This Tribunal was set up under the Indian Railways Act, 1989. It adjudicates matters pertaining to the complaints against the railway administration. These may be related to the discriminatory or unreasonable rates, unfair charges or preferential treatment meted out by the railway administration. The appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies with the Supreme Court.

Industrial Tribunal

This Tribunal has been set up under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It can be constituted by both the Central as well as State governments. The Tribunal looks into the dispute between the employers and the workers in matters relating to wages, the period and mode of payment, compensation and other allowances, hours of work, gratuity, retrenchment and closure of the establishment. The appeals against the decision of the Tribunal lie with the Supreme Court.

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:

Ø Flexibility

Ø Adequate Justice

Ø Less Expensive

Ø Relief to courts

Ø Experimentation

· Flexibility

Administrative adjudication has brought about flexibility and adaptability in the judicial as well as administrative tribunals. For instance, the courts of law exhibit a good deal of conservatism and inelasticity of outlook and approach. The justice they administer may become out of harmony with the rapidly changing social conditions. Administrative adjudication, not restrained by rigid rules of procedure and canons of evidence, can remain in tune with the varying phases of social and economic life.

· Adequate Justice

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. Lawyers, who are more concerned about aspects of law, find it difficult to adequately assess the needs of the modem welfare society and to locate the individuals place in it.

· Less Expensive

Administrative justice ensures cheap and quick justice. As against this, procedure in the law courts is long and cumbersome and litigation is costly. It involves payment of huge court fees, engagement of lawyers and meeting of other incidental charges. Administrative adjudication, in most cases, requires no stamp fees. Its procedures are simple and can be easily understood by a layman.

· Relief to Courts

The system also gives the much-needed relief to ordinary courts of law, which are already overburdened with ordinary suits.

· Experimentation

Experimentation is possible in this field and not in the realm of judicial trials. The practical experience gained in the working of any particular authority can be more easily utilised by amendments of laws, rules and regulations. Amendment of law relating to courts is quite arduous.

In sum, flexibility, accessibility and low cost are the important merits of administrative tribunals. In the words of W.A. Robson, the advantages of administrative tribunals are "cheapness and speed with which they usually work, the technical knowledge and experience which they make available for the discharge of judicial functions in special fields, the assistance which they lend to the efficient conduct of public administration, and the ability they possess to lay down new standards and to promote a policy of social improvement".

DISADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Even though administrative adjudication is essential and useful in modern day administration, we should not be blind to the defects from which it suffers or the dangers it poses to a democratic polity. Some of the main drawbacks are mentioned below.

· 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. But administrative tribunals, with their separate laws and procedures often made by themselves, put a serious limitation upon the celebrated principles of Rule of Law.

· Administrative tribunals have, in most cases, no set procedures and sometimes they violate even the principles of natural justice.

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE: These principles aim to provide fair, impartial and reasonable-justice. These principles include:

i) No person should be a judge in his own cause.

ii) No decision should be given against a party without affording them a reasonable hearing.

iii) Quasi-judicial enquiries should be held in good faith and without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. To give every citizen a fair hearing is as much a canon of good administration as it is of a good legal procedure.

· 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.

· The civil and criminal courts have a uniform pattern of administering justice and centuries of experience in the administration of civil and criminal laws have borne testimony to the advantages of uniform procedure. A uniform code of procedure in administrative adjudication is not there.

· Administrative tribunals are manned by administrators and technical heads who may not have the background of law or training of judicial work. Some of them may not possess the independent outlook of a judge.

However, there exist certain safeguards, which can go to mitigate or lessen these disadvantages.

SAFEGUARDS IN THE WORKING OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Administrative adjudication suffers from many shortcomings that cannot perhaps be denied. But, like delegated legislation, it is an inescapable necessity in a modern complex society. Therefore, to overcome the shortcomings, few safeguards are suggested to make administrative adjudication impartial and certain. These safeguards include:

· Administrative tribunals should be manned by persons possessing legal training and experience. To inspire public confidence, the appointment of members should be made in consultation with the Supreme Court.

· A code of judicial procedure for administrative tribunals should be devised and enforced. This is important in view of the prevalence of varying procedures of administrative adjudication in India.

· Reasons should invariably accompany decisions by the tribunals. "Good Laws", observed Jeremy Bentham, "are such laws for which good reasons can be given". A reasoned decision goes towards convincing those, who are affected by it, about its innate fairness and is a check against misuse of power.

· The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (as well as the High Courts) should not be Administration curtailed. In other words, the right to judicial review on points of law must remain unimpaired. Some of the administrative tribunals permit appeal to the court of law. Some, however, seek to ban judicial review altogether by making decisions final. According to M.C. Setalvad, former Attorney General of India, the need for judicial review is greater in a nascent democracy like India.


CHANGES BROUGHT BY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2006

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was amended in the year 2006 by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act 2006. The amendments were made effective from 19.02.2007. Some of the principal changes brought about are, the abolition of the post of Vice-Chairman; changes in the terms of office in the form of increase in the age of superannuation of the Chairman from 65 years to 68 years and that of the other Members from 62 years to 65 years; the term of the Members was fixed to 5 years, extendable by another term of 5 years; and, incorporation of Section 10A as a savings clause, for saving the term of office of the Chairman, Vice- Chairman and Members, who were appointed prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act.

CONCLUSION

In view of the increasing role of administration in citizens' life, the administrative tribunals are expected to play an important role in the redressal of citizens' grievances. The nature of administrative tribunals and the various reasons for their growing importance is discussed here. Various types of administrative tribunals are set up in the country to address various issues, such as, the adjudication of disputes and complaints of the public servants, redressal of consumer disputes, industrial disputes, disputes pertaining to income tax etc. They provide greater flexibility in administering justice and provide relief to the courts. But at the same time they suffer from some limitations as they sometimes violate the principles of natural justice, lack uniform pattern of administering justice and also suffer from the lack of a proper background on law or judicial work. However, with certain safeguards it is possible to rectify some of these limitations. The administrative tribunals should have people with legal training and experience. A code of judicial procedures should be devised and enforced for their functioning.