Tribunals in India: SC Strikes Down Provisions, Articles 323A–323B Explained

Introduction

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: “An independent judiciary is the soul of our Constitution.

The Supreme Court has recently invalidated parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, finding that many provisions were a re-enactment of the constitutionally void Ordinance of the same name, invalidated in the Madras Bar Association case.

The Court found that these provisions were in violation of two essential constitutional principles:

• Separation of Powers, and
• Judicial Independence

The executive may often be a party in a tribunal case. It cannot monopolize the appointment, term, or conditions of service of tribunal members. This ruling reaffirmed the principle that tribunals may be independent, impartial, and free of influence from the executive.

Constitutional Background

The Original Constitution (1950)

When the constitution came into force, tribunals were nowhere to be found.
It was only the regular judiciary—District Courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court—that would resolve any and all disputes.
There was no specialised judiciary to resolve any technical/global/sectoral situation.

Why Tribunals Were Necessary

In the time since independence, India has experienced:

• A massive boom in litigation,
• Incredibly technical disputes (taxation, service matters, company law, environment), and
• A crushing burden in the High Courts.

Tribunals had been envisioned to:

• Allow for speedy and specialised justice,
• Ease the clog in regular courts, and
• Insert some expertise into the decision-making process.

42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976

To formally give Parliament the power to create tribunals, Part XIV-A was added to the Constitution.

Part XIV-A contains two important articles:

• Article 323A – Administrative Tribunals- For service matters of public servants.
• Article 323B – Tribunals for Other Matters- For all other specialized subjects such as taxation, industrial disputes, elections, land reforms, etc.

This amendment represented a significant turning point:

India had a hybrid justice system under which some disputes could be resolved by specialized tribunals instead of the courts.

Note: For a discussion on citizenship and gender rights, you might link to the concept of feminist citizenship: Feminist concept of citizenship

Article 323A – Administrative Tribunals

Parliament may create tribunals under Article 323A for:

• Recruitment of government employees.
• Conditions of service of employees.
• Disciplinary matters.
• Other disputes associated with services.

The tribunals can hear matters involving:

• Employees of the Central Government.
• Employees of State Governments (if Parliament establishes a State AT).
• Local authorities.
• Public corporations.
• Organizations subject to government control.

This is when the idea of two principal types of service tribunal came into place:

1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)- For Central Government employees.
2. State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)- Created when states request them – Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, etc. states requested a SAT, many later abolished.

Article 323B – Tribunals for Other Matters

This Article grants power to Parliament or State Legislatures to establish tribunals for specific matters such as:

• Taxation
• Industrial and labour disputes
• Land reforms
• Urban land ceiling
• Elections of parliament & state legislature
• Foodstuffs
• Rent and tenancy
• Cooperative societies
• Import-export
• Any subject mentioned in the Article

The organizations we have today, for example the NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal), NGT (National Green Tribunal), DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal), TDSAT (Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal), all assist to expedite technical expert-based adjudication.

Note: To connect constitutional values with social justice and governance, you might mention the Gandhian-socialist principles behind the DPSPs: Gandhian socialist principles of DPSPs

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

Development of CAT

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was brought into existence in 1985 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, using the constitutional authority of Article 323A.

CAT was created with simplicity in mind. The aim of creating CAT is:

a) To create a fast,

b) Specialized, and

c) Efficient adjudication authority to address service issues of Central Government employees.

CAT is not bound in the same way as courts are to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Procedures of CAT proceed based on principles of natural justice which would allow them to be more flexible and quicker.

Previously, appeals from CAT went directly to the Supreme Court of India. After the decision in the L. Chandra Kumar (1997) case, High Courts reinstated the power of judicial review of orders from CAT.

It was decided in CAT that it was a court, “”subject to the writ jurisdiction of High Court.“

Structure of CAT

The structure of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is widely accepted:

• Principal Bench , New Delhi- The Principal Bench is home to the administrative centre.
• Zonal / Regular Benches- There are Zonal/Regular benches to ensure that each citizen can access the tribunal across major cities in India.

Composition

Each Bench has:

• Judicial Members – usually former High Court judges or equivalent level judicial officers
• Administrative Members – officers with substantial experience in civil services.

This combined structure brings together legal and service-administrative expertise resulting in sophisticated decision making by CAT.

Jurisdiction of CAT

CAT can adjudicate disputes regarding:

• Recruitment– Appointments, examinations, selections, or promotions.

• Service Conditions– Salaries, Leave, Transfers, Pensions, Disciplinary hearings, Seniority claims,Resignation, dismissals or penalties.

Bodies under Jurisdiction- CAT has jurisdiction over:

• Central Government employees.
• Employees of Union Territories.
• Employee of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to the extent notified by the Central Government.
• Employees of certain government-controlled societies and authorities.
• Bodies/Collective Groups Excluded

CAT does not exercise jurisdiction over:

• Employees of the Armed Forces.
• Employees of the Supreme Court.
• Statutorily excluded certain posts at the high level.

State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)

States, acting under Article 323A, are able request the Central Government to establish a State level Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for its own employees.

Examples of SATs:

• Andhra Pradesh SAT
• Karnataka SAT (later delinked)
• Madhya Pradesh SAT (delinked too)
• Odisha SAT (had established practice earlier).

A few of those or state like Maharashtra do not have a separate SAT; instead, CAT benches handle state matters when extended jurisdiction is granted.

Why Many SATs Were Discontinued?

• Many states have discontinued their SATs over the years for a variety of reasons, including:
• High pendancy defeated the notion of “speedy justice.”
• High financial cost.
• Overlapping jurisdiction with High Courts.
• Preference to revert to High Court oversight following L. Chandra Kumar.

Despite these challenges, where SATs remain, they serve a useful function in India’s tribunal system by providing specialized adjudication for state service disputes.

Why the Supreme Court Struck Down Some Provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021?

What Was Struck Down?

The Supreme Court struck down the following important provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021:

• Minimum age of 50 years for appointment
  – Arbitrary
  – Violated Article 14 by prohibiting younger qualified advocates and experts.

• 4-year tenure for members
  – Too short to achieve independence from the executive.
  – The SC restored the lengthier five-year tenure proposed previously.

• Re-enactment of provisions that had been struck down.
  – The Act repeals provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021, which the SC previously declared unconstitutional in Madras Bar Association.

• Failing to constitute the National Tribunals Commission (NTC)
  – The government did not establish the NTC, an independent body to oversee appointments and administration of tribunal proceedings, despite multiple SC instructions since 2020.

Fundamental Reasons for the Ruling

The Supreme Court indicated that the legislation strongly favoured the Executive with respect to:

• Appointments
• Length of Tenure
• Terms and Conditions of Service
• Process for Removal

All of this was seen as a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine, because tribunals often hear cases involving the government. If the government controls appointments, the tribunal is not independent.

Therefore, the Court held that the provisions were unconstitutional.

Doctrine Adopted by the Supreme Court

1. Doctrine of Judicial Independence

A tribunal, as a judicial body, must be free from executive control.
Independence = essential to fair justice.

2. Basic Structure Doctrine

Separation of powers + judicial independence = part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Since no law can violate the Basic Structure doctrine (which is deeply rooted in the Constitution), the law in this case was unconstitutional.

3. Doctrine of Repugnancy to Supreme Court Decisions

Parliament cannot:

• Enact a law,
• With the same defects
• That the Supreme Court has already struck down.

This is what happened in this case.

All of which focused on independence of the tribunal and restrained executive control.

Reasons Why Striking it Down was Important

• Tribunals cannot become administrative bodies of the executive.
• If the executive is frequently a party to litigation, executive control creates bias.
• Judicial independence is paramount.

Our citizens must be confident that tribunal decisions are fair.

For this reason, the SC intervened to safeguard the credibility of the tribunal framework.

Note: When explaining executive powers and checks on authority, you could refer to a simpler primer on the President of India’s powers: President of India: powers, election, veto & pardoning

Some Important Tribunal Decisions In the Past

Tribunals have made significant decisions that have impacted Indian administrative, environmental and corporate law.

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

1. Union of India vs. V. S. Gopinath

Clarifies the provisions regarding service conditions and disciplinary actions of government servants.

2. Yogesh Sharma case

Provided a significant interpretation regarding reservations in promotions.

National Green Tribunal (NGT)

1. Sterlite Copper case

Ordered closure of the Tuticorin Sterlite Plant based on violations of environmental regulations.

2. Art of Living – Yamuna Floodplains

The NGT directed compensation for damage to the environment because of the World Culture Festival.

NCLT & NCLAT

1. Jet Airways inception of insolvency

In this case, the NCLT initiated insolvency proceedings against Jet Airways, igniting a significant moment for cross-border insolvency.

2. Essar Steel case

NCLAT’s decision regarding the distribution of funds from a resolution process by Essar Steel would ultimately become a major case in the SC that fundamentally impacted the jurisprudence on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Judiciary v.s. Executive: The Dilemma Continues

“K.M. Munshi: “Power should not rise unduly for any one organ.”

Tribunals were initially created to lighten the workload of the High Courts. However, the establishment and control of tribunals became a source of contention between:

• The Executive (who wants to control appointments, tenure, administration)
• The Judiciary (who wants to protect the integrity of tribunals)

This push-and-pull reflects the deeper constitutional struggle over the balance of power.

CAT Benches & Their Territorial Jurisdiction

Significance of Checks and Balances

• Checks and balances guard against the accumulation of power.
• Checks and balances safeguard the rights and privileges of citizens.
• Checks and balances ensure fairness when the government is a litigant.
• Checks and balances inspire confidence in justice institutions.
• Checks and balances confine each organ to its constitutional fold.

Conclusion

Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer: “Judicial review is the heart of the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court of India’s decision to strike down fundamental provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 represents a robust reaffirmation of judicial independence and the Basic Structure. The Court achieved this by addressing provisions that facilitated significant executive oversight over both tribunal appointments and tenure. Their efforts now ensure that appointment processes do not lead to tribunals being treated as arm’s length institutions of government—particularly since the government will likely be a regular litigant before them.
This judgment returns the constitutional balance between executive and judiciary function and strengthens the integrity of the tribunal system. Furthermore, the judgment relies upon the rationale that justice must be free from actual, apparent, or potential influence or bias or domination

Importantly, the Court has once again directed the government to create a National Tribunals Commission, which will act as an independent body to oversee appointments, administration, infrastructure, and functioning of tribunals. Such a commission is essential to ensure long-term autonomy, consistency, and efficiency across India’s tribunal ecosystem.

In essence, the verdict is not just about striking down a law—it is about protecting the integrity of justice, maintaining checks and balances, and preserving the core constitutional promise of fairness and independence in adjudication.

FAQs

Q1. Why do we need tribunals when courts already exist?

Tribunals specialise in technical areas → faster and expert decisions.

Q2. Are tribunals equal to courts?

They are “quasi-judicial bodies”, not full courts, but their decisions can be reviewed by High Courts.

Q3. Who appoints tribunal members?

The government appoints them, but SC ensures independence through guidelines.

Q4. Can a tribunal override a High Court?

No. After L. Chandra Kumar (1997), tribunals are subject to High Court judicial review.

Q5. Does every state have a SAT?

No. Only few states requested one; many states later abolished theirs.