This article is written by Babirye Janefrancis Namukwaya, BBA LLB, SOA National Institute of Law, during her internship with the Le Droit India.
Abstract
This Article examines the differences and similarities between courts of India and administrative tribunals under the framework of the Indian Constitution, with emphasis on their judicial structures and approach to adjudication. It also reviews the objectives and applicability of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, providing an overview of the different types of administrative tribunals. The conclusion identifies how both systems coexist within the broader justice delivery mechanism in India.
Key words: Indian Constitution, Courts of India, Judicial Structure, Adjudication, Administrative Tribunals.
Contents
Objectives for the establishment of Administrative Tribunals in India 2
Applicability of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 2
Types of Administrative Tribunals 2
Structure of Courts in India 3
Differences Between Administrative Tribunals and Courts 4
Similarities Between Administrative Tribunals and Courts. 5
Introduction:
Today’s judicial system in India was built based on the Ancient Period, Medieval Period and the Colonial era which was the most impactful time. During the colonial Era, the common law system was introduced by the British, leading to establishment of Indian High courts in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in 1861. Post Independence in 1947, the Supreme Court of India was established as the highest court. Through the Indian Constitution, Courts are vested with judicial powers to serve justice and protect rights of individuals.
Administrative Tribunals are traced back right before India’s independence when Income Tax Appellate Tribunal came into existence and post India’s Independence when the Indian Constitution granted several rights in relation to one’s welfare. Administrative Tribunals were majorly established to speed up the disposal of disputes since the current judicial system is overburdened, and through the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act 1976, the power to adjudicate and hold trial of disputes and complaints arising from Administrations, recruitment and conditions of service of public servants under Part XIVA, Article 323A.
Objectives for the establishment of Administrative Tribunals in India
- To reduce congestion and lower the burden of cases in courts.
- To speed up disposal of disputes relating to service matters
Applicability of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
The act applies to all Central Government employees except –
- The members of the armed forces of the Union
- Any officer or public servant of the Supreme Court or any High Court
- Anyone appointed to the secretarial staff of Houses of the Parliament.
Types of Administrative Tribunals
- Central Administrative Tribunal
The Government established the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 1985 under Article 323A of the Constitution to resolve service-related disputes efficiently. Headquartered in New Delhi, the Tribunal includes both Judicial and Administrative Members, selected for their expertise to ensure focused and effective administration of justice.
Most of its benches have one Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. The CAT jurisdiction is limited to service-related matters, and they depend on categories of people over whom the Act has jurisdiction and those include the officers in all-India services, central civil services, posts under the Union in the civil services and civilian employees in the defense services.
The members are selected based on recommendation of a high-level selection committee chaired by a sitting Supreme Court judge who is nominated by the Chief Justice of India. The appointments are ultimately made by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
Procedure:
The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is not mandatory to CAT but rather focus is laid on principles of natural justice. Appeals against CAT decisions are made to the division bench of the corresponding High Court; and then appealed to the Supreme Court where necessary
- State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)
The Central Government can set up State Administrative Tribunals at the request of a state according to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving the recruitment and service conditions of state government employees. The President appoints the Chairman and Members after consulting the Governor of the concerned state.
- Joint Administrative Tribunals (JATs )
The Act of 1985 enables two or more states to cooperate and establish Joint Administrative Tribunals. JATs work as the collective authority of the administrative tribunals in such states. The President appoints the Chairman and Members after consulting the Governors of the participating states, just as in the case of State Administrative Tribunals (SATs).
Structure of Courts in India
Established in 1950, the Supreme Court of India serves as the guardian of the Constitution. The President appoints the Judges based on the Collegium system. It has original jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction and advisory jurisdiction. It also has Special leave Petition. It has the power to punish any person who commits contempt as it.
- High Courts
Generally, one High Court per state and for some states for a given High Court can be for multiple states under Article 214. High Court Judges are appointed by the President after consulting the Collegium and the state’s Chief Justice. They have the original jurisdiction, Writ jurisdiction and Appellate jurisdiction.
They have Supervisory Powers under Article 227 over subordinate courts and tribunals and power to punish for contempt of court orders under Article 215.
- District Courts
They are set up for districts and supervised by the High Courts. They are divided into Civil, Session and Criminal courts. District Judges have appellate authority over subordinate courts.
- Subordinate Courts
These are the lowest Courts and are divided into civil courts and criminal courts
having the Senior and Junior Civil Judge Courts under the civil courts and Chief Judicial Magistrate, and First & Second-Class Magistrate Courts in the criminal courts. They have the power to conduct primary trials and are the first point of entry for most legal cases.
Differences Between Administrative Tribunals and Courts
- Based on Composition and Bench
Every Administrative Tribunal consists of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Judicial Members, and Administrative Members. Each Bench includes at least one Administrative Member and one Judicial Member. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) includes 69 members across different benches—35 Administrative Members and 34 Judicial Members.Under the appointment of the Chief Justice of India, they serve for a term of 5 years or until the age of 62, whichever comes first. Tribunals combine technical experts, while the Supreme Court includes the Chief Justice of India and up to 34 judges. The President of India appoints these judges in consultation with the Chief Justice and other senior judges. Courts consist solely of judicial officers.
- Based on Establishment.
Administrative Tribunals are established by Acts of Parliament or State Legislatures. That to say; The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Whereas, Courts are established by the Constitution or legislative statutes, such as The High Courts Act 1961, The Family Courts Act, 1984 among others.
- Based on Jurisdiction
Administrative Tribunals have specific jurisdictions focusing on areas like administrative, tax, or environmental issues While Courts have broad jurisdiction that includes civil, criminal, constitutional, and various other cases.
- Based on Appeals
Appeals in Administrative Tribunals are generally heard within the tribunal system or directly by the High Court, while Court appeals are made to higher courts following a structured hierarchy.
- Based on costs
Costs in Administrative Tribunals are kept low, as intended to be While Court costs may be more expensive because of the formal procedures and lawyers.
- Based on Nature
Administrative Tribunals are Quasi-judicial in nature while Courts form part of the traditional judicial system
- Administrative Tribunal may represent itself as a party in a dispute while Court judges are impartial and can never be a party nor have any interest or stake whether directly or indirectly in the matter before it.
- Administrative Tribunal are dependent on the Executive while Courts are independent of the Executive.
- A court delivers its decision in a dispute as a judgment or decree, whereas a tribunal delivers its decision as an award.
- Courts follow the statutory rules of procedure and evidence while adjudicating disputes, whereas Administrative Tribunals follow the principles of natural justice.
- Administrative Tribunals decide the extent of public access, with some proceedings open and others closed or limited, whereas courts keep their proceedings open to the public.
Similarities Between Administrative Tribunals and Courts.
- Both the Administrative Tribunals and courts function through Benches.
- The Indian Constitution and various statutes govern and establish both Administrative Tribunals and Courts.
- Both offer final decisions to disputing parties and are enforceable under Law.
- Both offer the possibility of appeals to be made against the earlier decisions made to the Supreme court and High courts.
- Both perform Judicial functions
- Both make decisions based on the principles of natural justice such as right to be heard and impartiality in decision-making.
- Both adjudicate legal disputes, in civil, criminal and specialized areas
- Both are under the supervision of the Supreme court and High courts to ensure that they are made in line with the constitution and legal norms.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the Indian legal system has both courts of India and administrative tribunals established under it, each operating within the framework of the Indian Constitution. Their coexistence strengthens the country’s judicial structure as it aims at protecting the rights of individuals and offering speedy disposal of cases by balancing general and specialized forums for adjudication. Courts follow a hierarchical and constitutionally established system, while tribunals offer a more focused and time-efficient approach. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 enables quicker resolution of service-related disputes. Though different in structure and procedure, both ensure access to justice. The traditional judicial system oversees and ensures accountability in tribunals. Together, they uphold constitutional values and promote effective dispute resolution.
References
1. Swathi Satish, History of Indian Judiciary, CLEAR IAS, (Dec. 20th, 2024), https://www.clearias.com/history-of-indian-judiciary/https://www.clearias.com/history-of-indian-judiciary/
2. Neha Gururani, Administrative Tribunals in India, IPLEADERS, (Jun. 20th, 2019) https://blog.ipleaders.in/administrative-tribunals-in-india/
3. Tarun IAS, Administrative Tribunals in India: Structure, Functions and Constitutional Framework, (Jan. 18th, 2025), https://tarunias.com/exams/upsc-notes/administrative-tribunals-in-india/
4. Soumi Kundu, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND COURTS, LEGAL VIDIYA, (last Accessed on June 27, 2025), DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND COURTS – Legal Vidhiya
5. INDIA CONST. art. 136
6. INDIA CONST. art. 129
