Supreme Court upholds abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal by Central government

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the abolition of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT) by the Central government, stating that the same was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution [Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v Union of India]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli said that that Article 323A of the Constitution does not preclude the Central government from abolishing state administrative tribunals."The Union Government acted in valid exercise of its powers when it invoked Section 21 of the General Clauses Act read with Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act to rescind the notification establishing the OAT because the decision to establish the OAT was an administrative decision and not a quasi-judicial decision ... The notification dated 2 August 2019 by which the OAT was abolished is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," the Court held..The Court added that people or their representatives need not be heard while taking a policy decision such as this one. "There is violation of reasonable classification. High Court was already hearing the cases which were before OAT. The failure of the Centre to conduct a judicial impact assessment does not vitiate the decision to abolish the OAT.".In this case, a plea by the OAT Bar Association stated that Central government had issued a notification abolishing the OAT by invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (GCA) when the parent Act - the Administrative Tribunals Act - 1985 (AT Act) implicitly denied exercise of such power..The Orissa High Court had earlier dismissed the challenge to the abolition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.The plea stated that the High Court turned a blind eye to the abuse of power by the Centre as well as the State government, by simply terming it to be an administrative action."In the present case, the Centre could not invoke Section 21 of GCA to do indirectly that which was prohibited to be done directly under the AT Act, and by upholding the illegal and arbitrary decision of the government, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside," the petition said..It highlighted that the parliament, by way of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, and pursuant to Article 323A, had enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985.Parliament envisaged a twin purpose for establishing administrative tribunals: to reduce the burden of cases on the High Courts, as well as to secure speedy disposal of cases, the plea also said..The top court in its ruling noted that not all judicial fora may be immediately accessible in terms of distance for litigants."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. It is an undeniable fact that some courts and forums will be located in some towns and cities and not others. Some or the other litigants will be required to travel some distance to access a particular forum or court."A policy cannot be struck down on the ground that it was arrived at without offering sections of the public at large the opportunity to be heard, the apex court observed. "The absence of a right to be heard before the formulation or implementation of a policy does not mean that affected parties are precluded from challenging the policy in a court of law," the bench underscored.The Court rejected the contention that the Union government could not revisit its decision to set up the OAT once it was constituted. "If the doctrine of functus officio were to be applied to the sphere of administrative decision-making by the state, its executive power would be crippled. The state would find itself unable to change or reverse any policy or policy-based decision and its functioning would grind to a halt. All policies would attain finality and any change would be close to impossible to effectuate. This would impact not only major policy decisions but also minor ones ... By their very nature, policies are subject to change depending on the circumstances prevailing in society at any given time," the Court said..Advocates Ashok Panigrahi and Dr Aman Hingorani appeared for the appellants. Advocate C Ravichandran Iyer appeared for the intervenors.Advocate General Ashok Parija and Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh appeared for the respondents.[Read Judgment]