Search results
Many Supreme Court judgements have changed the face of Indian polity and law. These landmark SC judgements are very important segments of the UPSC syllabus.In this series, we bring to you important SC judgments explained and dissected, for the benefit of IAS aspirants.
Nov 15, 2023 · a: Centre Administrative Tribunal (CAT) This Tribunal shall be established by the Central Government having jurisdiction to deal with the matters of obligation concerning employees of the Central Government, or of Union Territories, or of local or other form of government under the authority or control of the Government of India, or of any company owned or controlled by the Central Government.This tribunal consists of a president, a vice-president and other members.
L Chandra Kumar Case 1997 is the landmark case which establishes the validity of Articles 323A and 323B, which dealt with the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service affairs. The judgment mentions a frequently mentioned distinction between tribunals and courts of law. The Indian polity and legal system have changed due to numerous ...
- According to Article 323-A, Parliament passed the Administrative Tribunal Act of 1985. To deliver prompt, efficient, and just justice to aggrieved...
- Tribunals are governed by law and function as quasi-judicial or judicial entities. In contrast to traditional courts, they hope to offer a platform...
- he administrative tribunal is a body established by statute and given judicial authority. All subjects fall under the general jurisdiction of a cou...
- 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 provided for the setting up of administrative tribunals in India.
- Introduction
- Background Facts
- Main Issues
- Arguments
- Judgment
- Conclusion
- References
There is a problem in the Indian Judiciary that the judicial mechanism is very slow which led to a pile-up of cases in the courts. It becomes a huge burden on the Courts to solve a large number of cases that’s why for a long time a mechanism was being searched to relieve all the courts from the burden especially from that of service litigation as i...
In 1976 Parliament passed the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976by which it added a new part in the Constitution i.e. Part- XIV-Aentitled as “Tribunals”. This part contains only two articles- Article 323-Agiver powers to the Parliament to provide the establishment of tribunals only for public service matters of the Centre, states, publ...
Whether the Tribunals constituted and functioning under the Act can be said to be effective substitutes for the High Courts in discharging the power of Judicial review? If not, then what are the am...Whether the power conferred by 3(d) of Article 323-B or by 2(d) of Article 323-A upon State Legislatures or Parliament exclude the jurisdiction of all courts (except Supreme Court under Article 136...Whether the Tribunals possess the competence to test the constitutional validity of a statutory rule which are constituted under Article 323-A or under Article 323-B of the Indian Constitution?The argument from the side of the petitioner are as follows- 1. They argued about the constitutionality of the Tribunals created under the Act and the provisions such as Article 323-A(2)(d) and Article 324-B(3)(d) under the Constitution of India. The exclusive power provided to the tribunals to exercise the jurisdiction vested in Articles 226 and 2...
The judgment was delivered by the Constitution Bench of seven judges. The bench observed that the judicial review is the most essential and basic structure of the Indian Constitution similarly the jurisdiction conferred under the Article 32 on the Supreme Court and under the Article 226 and 227 on the High Court is also a part of basic structure wh...
It is a well-known fact after the judgment was given in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)case that the basic structure of the Indian Constitution cannot be violated and all the legislation, acts, and regulations violating it will be considered null and void. It is settled provision that the High courts are the constitutional courts and ...
Mar 31, 2023 · Mar 31, 2023. The landmark case Chandra Kumar v. Union of India determined the legality of Articles 32A and 323B, which dealt with the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service affairs. The decision includes an often noted difference between courts of law and tribunals. Multiple Important Supreme Court judgements have altered the ...
- Answer: The L Chandra Kumar Case of 1997 is a landmark case that validated the legality of Articles 323A and 323B, which dealt with the exclusion o...
- Answer: The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 established a new part to the Constitution, Part XIV-A, titled "Tribunals," in 1976.
- Answer: It empowers Parliament to create tribunals solely for disputes relating to the Centre, states, public cooperation, municipal bodies, and ot...
- Answer: Article 35A of the Indian Constitution enabled the assembly of Jammu and Kashmir to define "permanent residents" of the state and grant the...
- Answer: Tribunals listen to witness testimony but make their own decisions about the case. Depending on the jurisdiction of the case, some tribunal...
- Answer: The traditional judicial structure includes a court of law. The administrative tribunal is a body established by statute and given judicial...
- Answer: Yes, the decisions of the administrative tribunal are subject to judicial review.
- The Parliament has given administrative tribunals the authority to adjudicate disputes involving public service problems from all sorts of courts....
- Central Administrative Tribunals is a statutory body established under Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Hence statement 1 is correct. The CAT is...
We may, however, advert to the Report of the Arrears Committee (1989-90), popularly known as the Malimath Committee Report, which has elaborately dealt with the aspect. The observations contained in the Report, to this extent they contain a review of the functioning of the Tribunals over a period of three years or so after their institution, will be useful for our purpose.
People also ask
Why is a thorough analysis of the case of Chandra Kumar important?
What is L Chandra Kumar case?
What did Chandra Kumar v Union of India decide?
Did Chandrachud change the view in Kamgar Union v Union of India?
Oct 1, 2019 · Let us look at the various cases decided after Sampath kumar’s case and the divergent views involved: a. In J.B. Chopra v. Union of India, relying upon Sampath Kumar, the court held that the Tribunals have the jurisdiction, power and authority even to adjudicate upon questions pertaining to the constitutional validity of a rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution framed by the President of India.
