Article 323A of the Indian Constitution does not act as a bar to the Union Government from abolishing an administrative tribunal

Today, while hearing the Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association vs Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the Central Government’s 2019 notification to abolish the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT). The top Court also stated that the same was not violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution. In this context, the bench highlighted that “The decision to abolish the OAT was not one which was so absurd that no reasonable person or authority would ever have taken it.” In addition, the decision to abolish a tribunal that it had established, based on an analysis of relevant factors was an absurd or unreasonable decision. The bench hearing the case consists of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli. They stated that  Article 323A of the Indian Constitution does not act as a bar to the Union Government from abolishing an administrative tribunal. The bench further added that “Article 323-A does not deprive Parliament of the power to choose an alternate course of action to reduce arrears or ensure speedy justice, by any other modality, including by strengthening other adjudicatory mechanisms. The intention of Parliament could not have been to mandate the establishment and continuation of administrative tribunals.”

In this case, the decision in L. Chandra Kumar seems to have influenced the State of Odisha to request the Union Government to abolish the OAT. The State of Odisha solicited the Orissa High Court’s views on the matter. The Union Government communicated its ‘in-principle’ approval of the proposal to abolish the OAT to the State of Odisha. The Union Government took recourse to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and abolished the OAT by issuing a Notification. The appellants filed a Writ Petition before the Orissa High Court for quashing the notification. The Orissa High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions by its common judgment and held that Article 323-A was an enabling provision. It does not make it mandatory for the Union Government to establish administrative tribunals or refrain from abolishing them once they were established. The High Court also observed that the procedure adopted by the Union Government may have been rendered arbitrary if it had failed to ensure that the High Court was consulted prior to abolishing the OAT because such a decision would directly impact the functioning of the High Court. The Supreme Court, therefore, stated that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned notification by which the OAT was abolished, was rejected. The judgment of the High Court stand affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

Also Read: Legal Articles