Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Abolishing Orissa Administrative Tribunal

07 May 2024 2:49 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