In Administrative law, the term tribunal is used in a significant sense and refers to only the adjudicatory bodies which are outside the sphere of the ordinary court of law. Technically in India, the judicial powers are vested in the Courts, which aim to safeguard the rights of the individuals and promote justice. Therefore, to institute an effective system of the judiciary with fewer complexities, the judicial powers are delegated to the administrative authorities, thus, giving rise to administrative tribunals or administrative adjudicatory bodies which hold quasi-judicial features. The traditional theory of laissez-faire has been given up, and the old police state has now become a welfare state. With us, you can get the best Tribunals Lawyer in Pune. This radical change in the philosophy of the role of the state expanded the functions of the state. Now the state is overburdened with sovereign functions, social security, social welfare, socio-economic activities, and so on. It is not possible for the ordinary courts of law to entertain all socio-economic problems which are not related to purely legal issues.

A court of law is a part of the traditional judicial system, and it derives its power from the state. On the other hand, an administrative tribunal is an agency created by a statute and invested with judicial Powers. There are tribunals for settling various administrative and tax-related disputes, including Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), National Green Tribunal (NGT), Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) and Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), among others. Also, you can get the best VCAT lawyer with Legal Act. Ordinary civil courts have judicial powers to try all suits of a civil nature, except those whose cognizance is either expressed or implied Barred. Administrative tribunals only have the power to try cases that are specially conferred upon them through some statute. Lack of jurisdiction to try all cases of civil nature does not necessarily lead to an inference that the forum is a tribunal and not a court. A court can also be constituted with limited jurisdiction.

Judges of ordinary courts of law are independent of the executive power of the government. Members of administrative tribunals are entirely in the hands of the government in respect of certain matters. The presiding officer of a court of law is a trained legal officer. At the same time, the president or the members of the tribunal may not be trained as well in law. In a court of law, a judge cannot decide a matter in which he is interested. We provide the best Tribunals Lawyer in Pune. An administrative tribunal may be a party to the dispute to be decided by it. A court of law is bound by all the rules of evidence and procedure. An administrative tribunal is not bound by those rules unless otherwise directed. A court of law must decide all the questions objectively on the basis of the evidence and material produced before it. An administrative tribunal may decide the questions taking into account the departmental policies or expediency, and the decision may be subjective rather than objective. At the same time, a court of law is bound by precedents, the principle of res judicata, and estoppels. An administrative tribunal is not strictly bound by them. A court of law can decide the vires of legislation while a tribunal cannot do so.