The original Constitution did not include provisions for tribunals, but the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Part XIV-A, focusing on tribunals, comprising two key articles: Article 323A for administrative tribunals and Article 323B for tribunals addressing other matters.
Article 323A empowers Parliament to establish administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes regarding the recruitment and conditions of service for individuals appointed to public services at the Center, state level, local bodies, public corporations, and other authorities. This provision effectively transfers these disputes from civil and high courts to administrative tribunals, aiming to provide quicker and more affordable justice for public servants.
The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 also allows the establishment of State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) at the request of state governments. As of 2019, SATs exist in several states, including Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala. However, some have been abolished and later reestablished, such as the Himachal Pradesh SAT.
The introduction of administrative tribunals through amendments to the Constitution reflects a significant shift towards specialized institutions to enhance the efficiency and accessibility of justice for public servants. Through structures like the CAT and SATs, the legal process surrounding service disputes has become more streamlined, upholding the rights of civil servants while ensuring governance efficiency.
Under Article 323B of the Indian Constitution, Parliament and state legislatures are empowered to establish tribunals for the resolution of disputes in various key areas, including:
Article 323A and Article 323B differ in several important aspects:
1. Scope of Matters:
2. Establishment Authority:
3. Tribunal Hierarchy:
In the Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court declared provisions that excluded the jurisdiction of high courts and the Supreme Court over these tribunals unconstitutional. This ruling affirmed that judicial remedies must be available against orders issued by these tribunals, upholding the principle of judicial review and ensuring access to justice.
The CAT operates through various benches across India, each with specified territorial jurisdiction. Below is a summary of the benches:
Sl. No. | Bench | Territorial Jurisdiction |
1 | Principal Bench, Delhi | Delhi |
2 | Allahabad Bench | Uttar Pradesh (except districts covered by Lucknow Bench) and Uttarakhand |
3 | Lucknow Bench | Uttar Pradesh (except districts covered by Allahabad Bench) |
4 | Cuttack Bench | Odisha |
5 | Hyderabad Bench | Andhra Pradesh and Telangana |
6 | Bangalore Bench | Karnataka |
7 | Madras Bench | Tamil Nadu and Puducherry |
8 | Ernakulam Bench | Kerala and Lakshadweep |
9 | Bombay Bench | Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu |
10 | Ahmedabad Bench | Gujarat |
11 | Jodhpur Bench | Rajasthan (except districts covered by Jaipur Bench) |
12 | Jaipur Bench | Rajasthan (except districts covered by Jodhpur Bench) |
13 | Chandigarh Bench | Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Chandigarh, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh |
14 | Jabalpur Bench | Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh |
15 | Patna Bench | Bihar and Jharkhand |
16 | Calcutta Bench | West Bengal, Sikkim, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
17 | Guwahati Bench | Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh |
The CAT’s benches also hold circuit sittings to enhance access to justice:
Sl. No. | Bench | Circuit Sittings Held |
1 | Allahabad Bench | Nainital |
2 | Calcutta Bench | Port Blair, Gangtok |
3 | Chandigarh Bench | Shimla, Jammu, Srinagar |
4 | Madras Bench | Puducherry |
5 | Guwahati Bench | Shillong, Itanagar, Kohima, Agartala, Imphal, Aizawl |
6 | Jabalpur Bench | Indore, Gwalior, Bilaspur |
7 | Bombay Bench | Nagpur, Aurangabad, Panaji |
8 | Patna Bench | Ranchi |
9 | Ernakulam Bench | Lakshadweep |