Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Law Ministry to perform a judicial impact assessment of all tribunals referred to in the Finance Act of 2017 as soon as possible.

Court further observed that this exercise was not carried out despite its order passed in 2019 in the case of Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd.

"The judgment was delivered on 13 November 2019. More than three years have since passed and the Ministry of Law and Justice is yet to conduct a judicial impact assessment..", the court noted. 

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli made this observation while upholding the Central Government's notification to abolish the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) issued in 2019 and dismissed the petition filed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal Bar Association challenging the Orissa High Court's decision upholding the abolition of the OAT.

However, the bench has clarified that the Union Government's failure to conduct a judicial impact assessment before abolishing the OAT does not invalidate its decision to do so because the directions in Rojer Mathew were general in nature and did not preclude the abolition of specific tribunals such as the OAT in the absence of a judicial impact assessment.

"An assessment such as the one directed to be conducted would only shed light on the impediments faced in the delivery of justice. The lack of an assessment precludes any well-informed, intelligent action concerning tribunals in the country (as a whole). This, in turn, has cascading effects for the citizenry, which is deprived of a well-oiled machinery by which it can access justice. We therefore reiterate the directions of this Court in Rojer Mathew (supra) and direct the Ministry of Law and Justice to conduct a judicial impact assessment at the earliest", the Court has observed.

On August 2 2019, the Union Government under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897 had abolished the OAT. In 2019, OAT Bar Association had filed a writ petition against this abolishment before Orissa High Court. Orissa High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed in 2021.

The Supreme Court noted that Article 323-A did not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs because it is an enabling provision which confers the Union Government with the power to establish an administrative tribunal at its discretion.

"The principles of natural justice were not violated because the class of people who were affected by the decision to abolish the OAT did not have a right to be heard. The public at large (or some sections of it) did not have a right to be heard before the policy decision was taken", the Supreme Court has further noted.

Case Title: Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association vs. Union of India & others

Statute: Administrative Tribunals Act, Section 21 of General Clauses Act, Constitution of India