Disciplinary Inquiry Stands Vitiated If No Oral Evidence Is Led To Prove Charges: Allahabad High Court Quashes Punishment Against SDM Delay In Lodging FIR For Outraging Modesty Not Fatal; Victims Often Hesitate Due To Social Stigma: Bombay High Court Maintenance Under PWDV Act Must Be Awarded From Date Of Filing Application, Not Date Of Order: Calcutta High Court Plea Of Alibi Must Be Proved With Absolute Certainty By Accused; Prosecution Case Must Still Stand On Its Own Legs: Delhi High Court Freezing Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Amount Is Disproportionate, Violates Article 21: Gujarat High Court Catch-Up Rule Applies In Absence Of State Law On Consequential Seniority; General Category Candidates Regain Seniority Upon Promotion: Jharkhand High Court Relaxation Of Voting Disqualification For Members Of 'Federal' Co-operative Societies Applies To 'Apex' Societies Too: Karnataka High Court Absence Of Express Trust Not Decisive; Public Dedication Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties & Long User: Kerala High Court Bhojshala Is A Temple Of Goddess Saraswati, 2003 Order Permitting Namaz Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Petitioner Seeking LOC Quashing Suppressed Foreign Citizenship; Not Entitled To Relief Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Protection Of Forests Outweighs Private Rights Of Encroachers; Voter IDs, Aadhaar Don't Confer Right To Stay In Reserved Forest: Gauhati High Court Section 294-A IPC: Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Without Prior Written Consent From State Government Or District Magistrate: Orissa High Court Defective Affidavit Not A Ground To Reject Election Petition At Threshold; It Is A Curable Defect: Uttarakhand High Court Witness Cannot Be Confronted During Cross-Examination With Documents Executed By Third Parties Without Prior Production: Telangana High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Abolishing Orissa Administrative Tribunal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the abolition of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT). The bench, comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hon'ble Justice Hima Kohli, dismissed the appeals challenging the notification issued by the Union Government on August 2, 2019, which abolished the OAT. The judgment has significant implications for the functioning of administrative tribunals in the country.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, addressed various aspects of the case and provided crucial legal reasoning. The court held that the writ petitions filed before the Orissa High Court were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution as the appellants claimed violation of their constitutional rights. The court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental right and examined the facets of access, including effective adjudication, reasonable accessibility, speedy process, and affordability.

Bench stated, "The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of adjudication created by statute or the Constitution."

The court further addressed the argument that the Union Government's decision to abolish the OAT was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The bench held that the decision was based on relevant factors and not unreasonable. It emphasized that the State Government did not take advantage of its own wrong by ceasing appointments to the OAT after deciding to abolish it.

One of the key issues raised in the case was the failure of the Union Government to conduct a judicial impact assessment before abolishing the OAT. While the court acknowledged the importance of such assessments, it clarified that the directions in a previous judgment did not prohibit the abolition of specific tribunals without an assessment. However, the court directed the Ministry of Law and Justice to conduct a judicial impact assessment as per its previous directions.

The judgment also discussed the notification not being expressed in the name of the President, stating that non-compliance with Article 77 of the Constitution does not render it invalid. The court highlighted that the abolition of the OAT did not violate the fundamental right of access to justice as all pending cases were transferred to the Orissa High Court.

Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the notification abolishing the OAT, emphasizing that the decision was constitutionally valid. The judgment has set a precedent regarding the powers of the Union Government in establishing and abolishing administrative tribunals, providing clarity on the procedural and legal aspects involved.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2023 

 Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar vs Union of India & others   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/21-Mar-2023-Orissa-Administrative-Tribunal-Bar-Vs-UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News