ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
AN OVERVIEW
Chapter
I: Reasons for growth of Administrative Tribunals and their Characteristics
Reasons for growth of Administrative Tribunals:
According to
Dicey’s theory of rule of law, the ordinary law of the land must be
administered by ordinary law courts. He was opposed to the establishment of
administrative tribunals. According to the classical theory and the doctrine of
separation of powers, the function of deciding disputes between the parties
belonged to ordinary courts of law. But, as can be seen over the period of
time, the governmental functions have increased and ordinary courts of law are
not in a position to meet the situation and solve the complex problems arising
in the changed socio- economic context.
Administrative
tribunals are established for the following reasons:
1)
The traditional judicial system proved
inadequate to decide and settle all the disputes requiring resolution. It was
slow, costly, inexpert, complex and formalistic. It was already overburdened,
and it was not possible to expect speedy disposal of even very important
matters: e.g. disputes between employers and employees, lockouts, strikes, etc.
These burning problems cannot be solved merely by literally interpreting the
provisions of any statute, but require the consideration of various other
factors and this cannot be accomplished by the courts of law. Therefore,
industrial tribunals and labour courts were established, which possessed the
technique and expertise to handle these complex problems.
2)
The administrative authorities can avoid
technicalities. They take a functional rather than a theoretical and legalistic
approach. The traditional judiciary is conservative, rigid and technical. It is
not possible for the courts of law to decide the cases without formality and
technicality. On the other hand, administrative tribunals are not bound by the
rules of evidence and procedure and they can take a practical view of the
matter to decide the complex problems.
3)
Administrative authorities can take preventive
measures, for example, licensing, ratefixing, etc. Unlike regular courts of
law, they have not to wait for parties to come before them with disputes. In
many cases, these preventive actions may prove to be more effective and useful
than punishing a person after he has committed a breach of any legal provision.
4)
Administrative authorities can take
effective steps for enforcement of the aforesaid preventive measures, e.g.
suspension, revocation or cancellation of licences, destruction of contaminated
articles, etc. which are not generally available through the ordinary courts of
law.
5)
In ordinary courts of law, the decisions are
given after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence on record. This procedure
is not appropriate in deciding matters by the administrative authorities where
wide discretion is conferred on them and the decisions may be given on the
basis of the departmental policy and other relevant factors.
6)
Sometimes, the disputed questions are
technical in nature and the traditional judiciary cannot be expected to
appreciate and decide them. On the other hand, administrative authorities are
usually manned by experts who can deal with and solve these problems, e.g.
problems relating to atomic energy, gas, electricity, etc.
7)
In short, as Robson says, administrative
tribunals do their work ‘more rapidly, more cheaply, more effectively than
ordinary courts… possess greater technical knowledge and fewer prejudices
against Government… give greater heed to the social interests involved… decide
disputes with conscious effort at furthering social policy embodied in the
legislation’.
By
K. jagadeesh
No comments:
Post a Comment