Subordinate Judiciary & Administrative Tribunals — Constitutional Law II Notes

Subordinate Judiciary (Arts 233–237)

Below the grand High Courts sits the court most citizens actually see — the district and the munsif court where a land dispute or a theft trial begins. The Constitution quietly makes sure these courts, too, stay independent: it puts their judges under the High Court’s control, not the government’s.

The courts below the High Court

The subordinate (district) judiciary is the tier of courts below the High Court — district judges and the civil and criminal courts under them. Articles 233–237 protect their independence by giving the High Court control over them:

Appointment of district judges (Article 233). Appointed by the Governor in consultation with the High Court. A person not already in service may be appointed a district judge if he has been an advocate for at least seven years and is recommended by the High Court.
Appointment of other judges (Article 234). Persons other than district judges are appointed by the Governor in accordance with rules made after consulting the High Court and the State Public Service Commission.
Control over subordinate courts (Article 235). Control over district courts and the courts subordinate to them — including posting, promotion and discipline of judicial officers (below district judge) — vests in the High Court. This is the key protection: the subordinate judiciary answers to the High Court, insulating it from the executive.
Interpretation (Article 237). The Governor may extend these provisions to any class of magistrates.

Article 235: “The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court …”

In Simple Terms: The lower courts of a State are controlled by the High Court, not by the government. The Governor appoints district judges only in consultation with the High Court, and the High Court manages the postings and discipline of judicial officers — keeping the trial courts independent of the executive.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — who disciplines a civil judge?

Facts. A State Government seeks to transfer and initiate disciplinary action against a civil judge (a judicial officer below district-judge rank).

Rule. Article 235 vests control — including posting, promotion and discipline — of judicial officers below district-judge rank in the High Court, not the executive.

Apply. Because the officer is a member of the subordinate judiciary, control over his posting and discipline lies with the High Court; the State Government cannot proceed on its own.

Conclusion. The disciplinary action must come from the High Court; the executive’s attempt to control the judge is unconstitutional as it invades Article 235.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Subordinate Judiciary (Arts 233-237)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["District judges: Governor + High Court (233)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Other judges: Governor + HC + PSC rules (234)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Control (posting/discipline) = High Court (235)"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

All India Judges Association v Union of India (1992) — directions to improve service conditions and independence of the subordinate judiciary.
State of Bihar v Bal Mukund Sah (2000) — appointments to the subordinate judiciary must follow Articles 233–235; the High Court’s role cannot be bypassed.

Administrative Tribunals (Arts 323-A / 323-B)

By the 1970s, the High Courts were drowning in service disputes — thousands of government employees fighting over promotions and postings. The 42nd Amendment offered a fix: set up special tribunals to take that load off the courts. But a question lingered — could these tribunals replace the High Courts entirely? The answer, in L. Chandra Kumar, was a firm no.

Specialised courts for specialised disputes

An administrative tribunal is a quasi-judicial body set up to decide disputes in a particular field (like government service or taxation) more quickly and expertly than an ordinary court. They were given constitutional backing by the 42nd Amendment (1976):

Article 323-A — service tribunals. Empowers Parliament to set up tribunals for disputes about the recruitment and service conditions of public servants. Under it, the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 created the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals.
Article 323-B — other tribunals. Empowers the appropriate legislature to set up tribunals for other matters — taxation, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms, elections, etc.

Who they cover and their power. The CAT decides service disputes of employees of the Union (and covered bodies) — including temporary and terminated employees, because its jurisdiction is over service matters, not over the permanence of the post. Its decisions were once meant to be final, but that has been softened by judicial review (below).

The crucial limit — judicial review survives. In L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review of the High Courts (Article 226/227) and the Supreme Court (Article 32) is part of the basic structure and cannot be ousted. So a tribunal’s decision is still subject to review by a Division Bench of the High Court. Tribunals supplement the courts; they do not supplant them.

Article 323-A(1): “Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State …”

In Simple Terms: Tribunals are special bodies that decide service and other disputes faster than regular courts. The CAT handles government service cases — including those of temporary or terminated employees. But you can still challenge a tribunal’s decision in the High Court, because the courts’ power of judicial review cannot be taken away.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — CAT’s jurisdiction over a terminated temporary employee

Facts. A temporary employee of the Central Government has his services terminated. He files a claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The employer argues the CAT has no jurisdiction because he was only temporary.

Rule. The CAT, under Article 323-A and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has jurisdiction over “recruitment and conditions of service” disputes of persons appointed to public services — the test is whether the dispute is a service matter, not whether the post was permanent.

Apply. A grievance about termination of service is squarely a “condition of service” dispute. The employee’s temporary status affects the merits (a temporary or probationary employee has fewer protections) but not the CAT’s jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Conclusion. The CAT has jurisdiction to decide the terminated temporary employee’s claim; the temporary nature of the appointment is a question for the decision on merits, not a bar to entertaining the case. The CAT’s order remains subject to High Court review (L. Chandra Kumar).

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Administrative Tribunals<br/>(42nd Amdt · Arts 323-A/323-B)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["323-A: service tribunals -> CAT (Act 1985)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["323-B: tax, labour, land, elections, etc."]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Covers temporary/terminated employees (service matters)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Limit: HC/SC judicial review survives (L. Chandra Kumar)"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) — tribunal decisions remain subject to the High Court’s Article 226/227 review; judicial review is basic structure.
S.P. Sampath Kumar v Union of India (1987) — upheld the Administrative Tribunals Act, requiring tribunals to be an effective substitute with judicial members.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Constitutional Law II topics