1. Core Legal Answer & Context: Tribunals in India represent a significant evolution in the country's justice delivery system, designed to provide specialized and speedy adjudication of disputes, thereby reducing the burden on ordinary courts. Their growth can be traced back to the pre-constitutional era, but they gained significant constitutional recognition and statutory backing with the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. This amendment introduced Part XIV-A into the Constitution, comprising Articles 323A and 323B.

Article 323A specifically empowers Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals for the adjudication of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services of the Union, States, local authorities, or other public corporations. Pursuant to this, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (ATA). The ATA provides for the establishment of a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) to deal exclusively with service matters. These tribunals are composed of both judicial and administrative members, aiming to bring specialized expertise to complex service-related issues. They possess the same powers as a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for certain matters like summoning witnesses, discovery, and inspection of documents. Initially, the ATA excluded the jurisdiction of all courts, except the Supreme Court, over matters falling within the tribunals' purview, but this position was later modified by judicial pronouncements.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• Article 323A of the Indian Constitution: Empowers Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals for service matters.
• Article 323B of the Indian Constitution: Empowers Parliament and State Legislatures to establish tribunals for other specific matters (e.g., taxation, land reforms, elections).
• Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: The primary legislation governing the establishment, jurisdiction, powers, and procedure of Administrative Tribunals.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. While acknowledging the need for specialized tribunals, the Court emphasized that the tribunals must function effectively as substitutes for High Courts and suggested measures to ensure their independence and efficiency, such as appointing judicial members with High Court judge qualifications.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): This landmark judgment significantly altered the landscape of tribunal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court declared Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution, to the extent that they excluded the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32/136 respectively, as unconstitutional. The Court held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated. Consequently, decisions of tribunals are now subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal falls, followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court.

4. Clear Conclusion: The growth of tribunals, particularly Administrative Tribunals, reflects a strategic move towards specialized and efficient dispute resolution. While initially conceived to bypass the High Courts, the Supreme Court's intervention in L. Chandra Kumar ensured that tribunals operate under the supervisory and judicial review jurisdiction of the High Courts, maintaining the constitutional balance and safeguarding the basic structure of judicial review. This has solidified their role as specialized bodies within the broader framework of the Indian judiciary.