1. Challenge to the abolition of a State Administrative Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 via a notification issued under the General Clauses Act. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 249
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli, J.
Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association - Appellant
versus
Union of India & others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No 6805 of 2022 and With Civil Appeal No 6806 of 2022
Decided On : 21-03-2023
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that the Union Government can abolish a State Administrative Tribunal by rescinding its establishing notification under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Article 323-A is an enabling provision, and since establishing the tribunal was an administrative act, its abolition is legally permissible.
Subject
Administrative Law - Tribunals
Act Referred
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT: S.4(1), S.29, S.15, S.3(q), S.28
AIR CORPORATIONS ACT: S.34
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136, Art.226, Art.227, Art.32, Art.14, Art.323(a)
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.21
LAND ACQUISITION ACT: S.17(1), S.48
MADHYA PRADESH REORGANISATION ACT: S.74
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: S.21
AIR CORPORATIONS ACT: S.34
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136, Art.226, Art.227, Art.32, Art.14, Art.323(a)
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.21
LAND ACQUISITION ACT: S.17(1), S.48
MADHYA PRADESH REORGANISATION ACT: S.74
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: S.21
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 323A and 14 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) - Union Government validly rescinded the notification establishing the OAT through Notification dated 2 August 2019 - Decision not arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice. (Paras 128b, 128e, 128g)
(B) Administrative Policies - Nature of administrative decisions - The Union Government did not become functus officio after establishing the OAT - Administrative decisions based on policy can be revisited and amended. (Para 128f)
(C) Fundamental Right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT considered not a violation as jurisdiction reverted to Orissa High Court which now operates virtual benches increasing access. (Para 114)
(B) Administrative Policies - Nature of administrative decisions - The Union Government did not become functus officio after establishing the OAT - Administrative decisions based on policy can be revisited and amended. (Para 128f)
(C) Fundamental Right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT considered not a violation as jurisdiction reverted to Orissa High Court which now operates virtual benches increasing access. (Para 114)
Judgement Key Points
Yes, the judgment addresses the early or speedy disposal of service matters as a core purpose of establishing State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) like the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT), and evaluates whether that purpose was fulfilled post certain judicial developments.
Key points related to early disposal of service matters:
-
Original purpose of SATs: SATs were created to provide speedy relief in service matters (recruitment, conditions of service, etc.), reducing court backlogs and enabling faster resolution of grievances by government employees. (!) (!)
-
Impact of judicial ruling: A 1997 Supreme Court decision introduced an additional tier of litigation (High Court review after SAT), defeating the speedy justice objective and rendering SATs less effective for quick disposal. This was a primary rationale for Odisha's request to abolish the OAT. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
OAT's performance data: In 2014, OAT had 47,619 pending cases at year-start; 13,823 new cases filed but only 7,417 disposed, increasing pendency to 54,334. The State deemed this unsatisfactory for speedy decisions. (!)
-
State's policy evaluation: Abolition was justified as the OAT no longer served speedy redressal due to multi-tier litigation, high costs, and low disposal rates; cases reverted to High Court without denying remedies. (!) (!) (!)
-
No violation of access to justice: High Court (with virtual benches) ensures continued speedy adjudication access, negating claims of prejudice to early disposal. (!) (!)
The Supreme Court upheld abolition, finding the decision rational and non-arbitrary, as speedy disposal remains achievable via High Courts. [p_128b][p_128e]
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Whether Article 323-A mandates tribunal establishment, if Section 21 General Clauses Act permits abolition, and if such abolition violates Article 14 and the right to access justice. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. The decision to establish a tribunal is administrative; Article 323-A is enabling; abolition based on policy and efficiency is not arbitrary or violative of natural justice. (Para 33 , 42 , 51 , 59 , 82 , 86 , 96 , 107 , 114 )
4. Article 323-A is directory; administrative orders establishing tribunals may be rescinded under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act if consistent with the statute's object. (Para 42 , 59 )
5. Appeals dismissed and the notification abolishing the State Administrative Tribunal upheld as constitutionally valid. (Para 129 )
6. Is the power to establish administrative tribunals under Article 323-A of the Constitution mandatory?
No, Article 323-A is a directory, enabling provision. The use of the word may indicates that Parliament has the discretion to enact laws for tribunals, and the objective of reducing arrears can be achieved through various other legal modalities. (Para 33 , 38 , 42 )
7. Can a notification establishing a State Administrative Tribunal be rescinded using Section 21 of the General Clauses Act?
Yes, provided the original notification was an administrative order based on policy and expediency rather than a quasi-judicial act. Section 21 applies if the rescission is not repugnant to the subject-matter, context, and object of the governing statute. (Para 45 , 51 , 59 )
8. Do the principles of natural justice require a pre-decisional hearing before the government takes a policy decision to abolish a tribunal?
No. Policy decisions formulated and implemented by the state do not require a formal hearing for the general public or impacted classes, as doing so would be impractical and against public interest. (Para 86 , 87 )
9. Does an executive order become invalid if it is not expressed in the name of the President under Article 77(1)?
No, Article 77(1) is directory. Non-compliance does not render the order void or invalid, but it prevents the government from claiming the irrebuttable presumption that the order was issued by the President. (Para 100 , 107 )
10. Does the doctrine of functus officio apply to the government's power to reverse administrative policy decisions?
No. The doctrine of functus officio applies to judicial or quasi-judicial finality to prevent endless revisiting of disputes. It does not apply to administrative policy, as the state must remain able to adapt policies to changing circumstances. (Para 95 , 96 )
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.
| Table of Contents | |
| A. | Background |
| i. | Factual background |
| ii. | The impugned judgment |
| B. | Submissions |
| C. | Issues |
| D. | Analysis |
| i. | An overview of the proceedings arising from the abolition of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal |
| a. | The abolition of the MPAT |
| b. | The abolition of the TNAT |
| ii. | The Writ Petitions instituted before the Orissa High Court were maintainable |
| iii. | Article 323-A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs |
| iv. | Applicability of Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT |
| a. | There is no bar to the applicability of Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT to the administrative order establishing the OAT |
| b. | Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT is otherwise applicable to the Administrative Tribunals Act |
| v. | The notification dated 2 August 2019 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution |
| a. | The notification dated 2 August 2019 is not absurd or based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations |
| b. | The principles of natural justice have not been violated |
| vi. | The Union Government did not become functus officio after establishing the OAT |
| vii. | The notification dated 2 August 2019 is valid despite not being expressed in the name of the President of India |
| viii. | The abolition of the OAT is not violative of the fundamental right of access to justice |
| ix. | The State Government did not take advantage of its own wrong |
| x. | The failure of the Union Government to conduct a judicial impact assessment before abolishing the OAT does not vitiate its decision to abolish the OAT |
| xi. | Miscellaneous contentions |
| E. | Findings and conclusion |
1. I.A. No. 52385 of 2022 (application for intervention by Mr. C. Ravichandran Iyer) is allowed.
A. Background
i. Factual background
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 7 June 2021 in a batch of writ petitions challenging the abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. 1 [“OAT”] Before setting out the facts which gave rise to the issues in this appeal, it is necessary to understand the context in which they arose.
3. Parliament inserted Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976. Part XIV-A consists of two articles, Articles 323A and 323B. Article 323A empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of certain disputes by administrative tribunals. Disputes concerning the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government, may be adjudicated by administrative tribunals. Article 323B empowers the legislatures of states to provide for the adjudication of certain disputes (enumerated in clause 2 of Article 323B) by tribunals.
4. In pursuance of the power conferred upon it by Article 323A(1), Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.2 [“Administrative Tribunals Act”]. The Statements of Objects and Reasons of this legislation records that it was enacted in order to give effect to Article 323A and also because:
“a large number of cases relating to service matters are pending before the various courts. It is expected that the setting up of such Administrative Tribunals to deal exclusively with service matters would go a long way in not only reducing the burden of the various courts and thereby giving them more time to deal with other cases expeditiously but would also provide to the persons covered by the Administrative Trib
