MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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