Skip to content

Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Administrative Laws

Administrative Tribunals: Articles 323A and 323B Explained

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

An administrative tribunal is a quasi-judicial body set up by statute to decide disputes in a specialised field, outside the regular courts. Article 323A covers tribunals for public service matters. Article 323B covers tribunals on other listed subjects. To answer, state the meaning, the source, the powers, the court difference, and L Chandra Kumar.

Understand Administrative Tribunals

A tribunal is a body created by law to decide particular kinds of disputes. It is not part of the regular court hierarchy. It has some court-like features, such as hearing both sides and giving a reasoned decision. But it is set up for one subject, such as service matters, tax or company law.

Why do tribunals exist? Ordinary courts are slow and overloaded. Many disputes need subject knowledge. A tribunal can offer quicker, cheaper and less formal justice, often with expert members. This is the core of the merits argument.

The Constitution gives the base. The 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted Part XIVA (Articles 323A and 323B). Article 323A lets Parliament, by law, set up administrative tribunals for disputes about recruitment and conditions of service of persons in public service of the Union, the States, local authorities and other authorities. Article 323B lets Parliament or State legislatures, on the matters listed in it, set up tribunals for subjects such as taxation, foreign exchange, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms, and elections to Parliament and State legislatures, within their legislative competence.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was made under Article 323A. It provides for the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for central government employees and State Administrative Tribunals where States request them. The Act also barred the jurisdiction of other courts in service matters, except the Supreme Court.

The key case is L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997). The Supreme Court held that judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and by the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. So clauses excluding High Court jurisdiction were unconstitutional. Tribunals can still act as courts of first instance. Their decisions are subject to scrutiny by the High Court of that area, before a Division Bench. Tribunals can also test the validity of statutory provisions, except the validity of their own parent law.

Key rules to remember

Article 323A
Parliament may by law set up administrative tribunals for service matters of public servants
Only Parliament can legislate under 323A. It covers recruitment and conditions of service.
Article 323B
Parliament or State legislature (within competence) may set up tribunals for listed subjects
Subjects include tax, foreign exchange, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms and elections to legislatures, among others.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Made under Article 323A; creates CAT and State Administrative Tribunals
State tribunals are set up only on a State's request and a Central notification.
L Chandra Kumar (1997)
Judicial review under Articles 226/227 and 32/136 = basic structure; tribunal decisions go to the High Court Division Bench
Tribunals are not substitutes for High Courts. They work as courts of first instance.
Court vs tribunal
Court: general, formal, part of the regular judiciary. Tribunal: specialised, created by statute, may be less formal
Both act judicially, but tribunals are bound by their parent Act and may include expert members.

How to solve Administrative Tribunals questions

Use one structure for any question on tribunals, whether it asks for notes, a comparison or a case-based problem.

  1. 1Define a tribunal in one line: a statutory, quasi-judicial body for a specific field.
  2. 2Name the constitutional source: Article 323A (service matters) or Article 323B (other listed subjects).
  3. 3Link the relevant Act, for example the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the CAT.
  4. 4State key features: statutory origin, subject focus, expert members, flexible procedure, judicial functions.
  5. 5If the question compares, give 3 or 4 clear points of difference with courts.
  6. 6Apply L Chandra Kumar wherever judicial review or High Court jurisdiction is in issue.
  7. 7Give a short conclusion that answers the exact question asked.

Quickest way: Source, Subject, Supervision

When to use it: Use this when time is short or the question asks for short notes.

  1. Source: write the Article (323A or 323B) and the Act that created the tribunal.
  2. Subject: state what disputes it handles, for example service matters for the CAT.
  3. Supervision: write that High Courts can review its orders as per L Chandra Kumar.
  4. Add one merit and one demerit if space allows.

Common mistakes in Administrative Tribunals

  • Saying Article 323A allows State legislatures to create tribunals.

    Students mix up 323A and 323B.

    Fix: Remember: 323A is Parliament only and for service matters. 323B allows Parliament or State legislatures for listed subjects.

  • Claiming tribunals are completely outside judicial review.

    Students recall the exclusion clauses and stop there.

    Fix: Cite L Chandra Kumar: High Court and Supreme Court review stay available as part of the basic structure.

  • Writing that tribunals are the same as courts.

    Both decide disputes, so the difference seems small.

    Fix: Give points: statutory creation, narrow subject, possible expert members, and procedure bound by the parent Act.

  • Saying L Chandra Kumar abolished tribunals.

    The case is remembered as striking down clauses.

    Fix: Write that tribunals remain valid and work as courts of first instance, with appeals to the High Court Division Bench.

  • Listing merits and demerits as a bare list.

    Students memorise words without explaining them.

    Fix: Add a short reason to each point, such as 'speedy, because procedure is less technical'.

Worked examples

Example 1

Distinguish between a court and an administrative tribunal.

Show the solution
  1. Begin with the meaning: a court is part of the regular judicial system with general jurisdiction; a tribunal is a statutory body with jurisdiction over a specific field.
  2. Origin: courts derive authority from the Constitution and general law; a tribunal is created by a particular statute, for example the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
  3. Subject: courts hear many kinds of cases; a tribunal hears only the matters its parent Act gives it.
  4. Members: judges are legally trained; tribunals may include technical or administrative members.
  5. Procedure: courts follow set procedural codes strictly; tribunals follow their Act and natural justice, often with flexibility.
  6. Review: tribunal orders can be examined by the High Court as laid down in L Chandra Kumar.

Answer: A court is a general, regular judicial body. A tribunal is a specialised statutory body with a limited field, possibly expert members and a flexible procedure, and its decisions remain open to High Court review.

Example 2

Aarav, a central government clerk, is dismissed from service. He wants to challenge the dismissal directly in the High Court under Article 226, skipping the Central Administrative Tribunal. Advise him.

Show the solution
  1. Issue: whether Aarav may bypass the CAT.
  2. Provision: the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, made under Article 323A, created the CAT for service matters of central government employees.
  3. Application: his dispute is about dismissal, which is a service matter within the CAT's jurisdiction.
  4. Case law: in L Chandra Kumar, the Supreme Court held that High Court power under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be removed, but tribunals act as courts of first instance and their decisions are reviewed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
  5. Result: Aarav should first approach the CAT, and then go to the High Court if aggrieved by its order.

Answer: Aarav should approach the CAT first. The High Court can later examine the CAT's order under Articles 226 and 227, in line with L Chandra Kumar.

Exam tips

  • Learn the 323A versus 323B contrast cold. Examiners often test it as a short question.
  • Always mention L Chandra Kumar in any answer on judicial review of tribunals.
  • For comparison questions, write 4 points in a clear list and a one-line conclusion.
  • For merits and demerits, give 3 or 4 of each with a reason, such as speed and expertise versus lack of uniform procedure and weaker independence concerns.
  • In case-based questions, follow provision, application and conclusion in that order.

Practice questions from Administrative Laws

Administrative Tribunals in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

Administrative Tribunals: frequently asked questions

What is the difference between Article 323A and 323B?

Article 323A lets Parliament set up administrative tribunals for service matters of public employees. Article 323B lets Parliament or State legislatures set up tribunals for other listed subjects, such as taxation and industrial disputes, within their competence.

What did L Chandra Kumar decide?

The Supreme Court held that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure. Clauses excluding High Court jurisdiction were invalid. Tribunals continue to work, but their decisions can be examined by the High Court Division Bench.

What are the merits and demerits of administrative tribunals?

Merits include speed, lower cost, subject expertise and flexible procedure. Demerits include possible lack of independence, uneven procedure, and the risk of arbitrary decisions without proper legal training.

Which tribunal does the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 create?

It creates the Central Administrative Tribunal for central government service matters. It also allows State Administrative Tribunals where a State asks for one.