Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Exclusion of Court Jurisdiction
Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 concerns the jurisdiction of courts in recruitment and service matters assigned to an Administrative Tribunal. Its bare statutory wording must now be read subject to the constitutional rule laid down by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
Updated: 14 September 2026
What does Section 28 mean?
Section 28 was enacted to channel specified recruitment and service disputes to Administrative Tribunals instead of ordinary courts. The provision states that, once a Tribunal is empowered to exercise jurisdiction over such matters, other courts are excluded, subject to the exceptions written into the section.
However, the Supreme Court subsequently held that Parliament cannot exclude the constitutional judicial review jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, or of the Supreme Court under Article 32, because judicial review forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Text of Section 28
Section 28 - Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution.
On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any Service or post or service matters concerning members of any Service or persons appointed to any Service or post, no court except -
(a) the Supreme Court; or
(b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or any other corresponding law for the time being in force,
shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters.
The above reproduces the substance of Section 28 for convenient reading. For authoritative statutory text and amendment notes, consult the official India Code resource linked below.
Effect of L. Chandra Kumar on Section 28
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, a seven-Judge Constitution Bench held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the Constitution's basic structure. Accordingly, exclusion clauses such as Section 28 are unconstitutional to the extent that they exclude those constitutional powers.
The decision did not abolish the role of Administrative Tribunals. Instead, Tribunals continue to act as courts of first instance in the areas for which they are constituted. A party ordinarily approaches the Tribunal first, and a Tribunal decision may then be examined by the High Court exercising judicial review.
The Supreme Court has continued to recognize this position in later decisions. In service matters covered by the Administrative Tribunals Act, the practical route is therefore not a complete exclusion of the High Courts, despite the wording of Section 28.
Present route for a CAT service matter
| First forum | Central Administrative Tribunal, where the dispute falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. |
|---|---|
| Judicial review | The appropriate High Court may review the Tribunal's decision under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. |
| Further remedy | A further challenge may lie before the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution and applicable procedural law. |
| Industrial and labour forums | Section 28 itself preserves the position of Industrial Tribunals, Labour Courts and corresponding authorities referred to in clause (b), subject to the governing law and the nature of the dispute. |
Why Section 28 remains important
Section 28 remains relevant because it identifies the legislative intention to confer primary jurisdiction over specified service disputes on Administrative Tribunals. At the same time, it must be applied consistently with the constitutional protection of judicial review.
In practical terms, a person should first determine whether the dispute is a "service matter" or a recruitment matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal or another Tribunal under the Act. The forum question depends on the employer, the post, statutory notifications, and the nature of the relief claimed.
Official legal resources
For the current statutory text, see the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on India Code. For Tribunal information, case services and official notices, visit the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Supreme Court's official site also provides the decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
Frequently asked questions
Does Section 28 completely bar the High Court?
No. The statutory language cannot operate to exclude the High Court's constitutional judicial review jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.
Can a service matter covered by CAT jurisdiction be filed directly in the High Court?
As a general rule after L. Chandra Kumar, the Administrative Tribunal is the court of first instance for matters within its assigned field. The Tribunal's decision is then subject to judicial review by the appropriate High Court.
Does Section 28 still appear in the Administrative Tribunals Act?
Yes. The provision remains part of the statutory text, but its exclusionary effect must be read subject to the constitutional limitations declared by the Supreme Court.