Administrative tribunal contempt power survives judicial review and remains valid under statutory contempt jurisdiction

An Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 retains contempt jurisdiction under section 17 because Article 323-A expressly permits Parliament to confer that power. The SC held that L. Chandra Kumar preserved the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, but did not invalidate section 17 or make the Tribunal's contempt power otiose merely because its decisions remain subject to judicial review. Section 30 of the Act was held not to displace the specific contempt power, and the appellate structure under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 did not undermine its operation. Accordingly, section 17 remains valid and operative within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether an Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has power to punish for contempt under section 17 of that Act after the decision in L. Chandra Kumar; and whether that provision becomes unconstitutional or otiose because the Tribunal is subject to judicial review and superintendence of the High Court.

Analysis: Article 323-A of the Constitution of India expressly authorises Parliament to confer on Administrative Tribunals the power to punish for contempt. Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 therefore rests on constitutional support. The earlier decision in L. Chandra Kumar preserved the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32, but did not strike down section 17 or hold that a Tribunal loses contempt power because its decisions are subject to judicial review. The Tribunal remains a statutory tribunal and not a High Court, yet it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the matters transferred to it. Section 30 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 only creates certain criminal liabilities for interference with judicial proceedings and does not displace the specific contempt power under section 17. The appeal structure under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 also does not render section 17 unworkable.

Conclusion: Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is valid and operative, and the Administrative Tribunal can punish for contempt of itself in the matters within its jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view that the Tribunal lacked contempt power was erroneous, and the contempt proceedings were required to proceed before the Tribunal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A Tribunal created under Article 323-A may be expressly vested with contempt jurisdiction by statute, and the availability of High Court judicial review does not extinguish that power unless the statute is constitutionally invalid or expressly struck down.

---