Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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