Specialised forums that took service and revenue disputes out of the ordinary courts — and how courts protect their own authority.
The 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted Article 323A, empowering Parliament to set up Administrative Tribunals to adjudicate disputes relating to recruitment and service conditions of public servants — leading to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the creation of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Article 323B similarly empowers the appropriate legislature to create tribunals for other specified matters (tax, land reforms, elections, industrial disputes, etc.).
The CAT adjudicates service disputes of central government employees, functioning as a substitute for the High Court's jurisdiction in such matters (subject to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), which held that tribunal decisions remain subject to judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226/227, preserving the judiciary's basic structure role). The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) adjudicates industrial disputes involving central government-related establishments (railways, banks, mines, ports) under the Industrial Disputes Act framework.
The power to punish for contempt of court is available to the Supreme Court and High Courts as "courts of record" (Articles 129 and 215), and is further regulated by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contempt is of two kinds: civil contempt (wilful disobedience of a court's order/judgment/decree) and criminal contempt (acts that scandalise the court, prejudice judicial proceedings, or interfere with the administration of justice). The power exists to protect public confidence in the judiciary's authority, not to shield individual judges from criticism — fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment is not contempt.
Download this topic's notes as a PDF, or search uploaded materials.
