Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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