Article 323A

Article 323A of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals for the adjudication of disputes and complaints relating to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts under the Union, the States, local authorities, or other government-controlled entities. This Article represents a significant step in India’s constitutional evolution toward specialised justice delivery systems, aiming to provide speedy and expert resolution of service-related matters while reducing the burden on traditional courts.

Background and Purpose

Before the introduction of Article 323A, service-related disputes were adjudicated primarily by High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32. The increasing number of service disputes, particularly after the expansion of government employment in independent India, resulted in a massive backlog of cases.
To address this, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, inserted Articles 323A and 323B into the Constitution. Article 323A specifically focuses on the creation of administrative tribunals for public service matters, while Article 323B empowers legislatures to set up tribunals for other specialised areas such as taxation, labour, and industrial relations.
The aim of Article 323A is to:

• Establish specialised adjudicatory bodies for service matters.
• Reduce judicial congestion in regular courts.
• Ensure speedy, expert, and efficient resolution of administrative disputes.
• Provide an alternative to the lengthy process of regular judicial litigation.

Text and Clauses of Article 323A

Clause (1): Empowerment of Parliament

Parliament is authorised to enact laws providing for the establishment of Administrative Tribunals to adjudicate disputes and complaints concerning:

• Recruitment to public services and posts; and
• Conditions of service of persons appointed to public services or posts under:
  • The Union,
  • Any State,
  • Local authorities, or
  • Corporations or societies owned or controlled by the government.

This clause gives Parliament exclusive power to legislate in this domain, even on subjects listed in the State List, thereby maintaining uniformity across the country.

Clause (2): Powers and Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals

This clause enumerates the specific aspects Parliament may regulate by law when establishing tribunals.

(a) Establishment of Tribunals

• Parliament can establish:
  • A Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for the Union Government, and
  • State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) for one or more States, as necessary.
• These tribunals are independent bodies empowered to adjudicate disputes relating to public service matters.

(b) Jurisdiction and Powers

• Tribunals are vested with the authority to exercise jurisdiction and powers over service matters.
• They are also empowered to punish for contempt, similar to the powers of a High Court, thereby ensuring compliance with their orders.

(c) Procedural Regulations

• Parliament can lay down procedures for conducting tribunal proceedings, including rules related to:
  • Evidence,
  • Time limits for filing cases, and
  • Other procedural aspects distinct from those of ordinary courts.

(d) Exclusion of Court Jurisdiction

• The jurisdiction of all courts, except the Supreme Court under Article 136, can be excluded for matters assigned to tribunals.
• This clause originally sought to bar High Courts from entertaining service-related cases once tribunals were established.

(e) Transfer of Pending Cases

• Service-related cases pending before ordinary courts could be transferred to the newly created tribunals, thereby centralising jurisdiction.

(f) Repeal or Amendment of Presidential Orders

• Parliament may repeal or amend Presidential Orders made under Article 371D, which dealt with special provisions for the State of Andhra Pradesh and certain other States concerning public employment.

(g) Supplemental Provisions

• Parliament may include supplementary or incidental provisions, such as:
  • Fixing tribunal fees,
  • Specifying qualifications for tribunal members, and
  • Laying down procedures for enforcement of decisions.

Clause (3): Overriding Effect

Article 323A(3) gives this provision overriding authority over all other constitutional provisions or existing laws. It ensures that laws made under Article 323A supersede any inconsistent laws or judicial practices concerning service disputes.

Legislation Under Article 323A: The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Pursuant to Article 323A, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which came into force on 1 November 1985. The Act provides for:

• The establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for Union employees;
• The creation of State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) on request by State Governments;
• Composition, jurisdiction, and powers of these tribunals; and
• The procedure for their functioning and appeal mechanisms.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was established in 1985, with its principal bench in New Delhi and several regional benches across the country.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Supreme Court Judgments

1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)

• The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
• However, it emphasised that the judicial review power of the Supreme Court and High Courts forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• It required administrative tribunals to function as effective substitutes for High Courts, ensuring similar procedural fairness and independence.

2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

• A landmark decision wherein the Supreme Court struck down the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Article 323A(2)(d) as unconstitutional.
• The Court held that:
  • Judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and by the Supreme Court under Article 32, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • Therefore, tribunal decisions are subject to scrutiny by the concerned High Courts.
• The ruling reaffirmed that tribunals are supplementary judicial bodies, not replacements for the constitutional courts.

3. Union of India v. R. S. Sharma (2000)

• The Court clarified that tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters assigned to them under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, but their decisions remain open to judicial review.

These judgments together shaped the functioning of administrative tribunals, ensuring a balance between efficiency and constitutional oversight.

Significance of Article 323A

1. Specialised Justice:
   • Establishes expert adjudicatory bodies for service matters, improving the quality of justice through subject-matter expertise.
2. Speedy Adjudication:
   • Reduces delays in regular courts by providing a dedicated mechanism for service disputes.
3. Uniformity:
   • Promotes consistent application of service laws across the Union and the States.
4. Reduced Judicial Burden:
   • Diverts a significant volume of service-related litigation from the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
5. Accessible and Efficient Justice:
   • Provides government employees with a simpler and more efficient avenue for resolving service grievances.
6. Checks and Balances:
   • Although tribunals are administrative in nature, they remain subject to constitutional oversight by the judiciary, maintaining the rule of law.

Relationship with Article 323B

Current Status and Practical Challenges

While the administrative tribunal system has been instrumental in streamlining service dispute resolution, it faces several challenges:

• Vacancies in tribunal posts delay adjudication.
• Resource constraints and inadequate infrastructure hamper efficiency.
• Limited appellate mechanisms create procedural bottlenecks.
• Perception of bias due to appointment processes controlled by the executive.