With reference to Administrative Tribunals established under the Constitution of India, which one of the following statements is not correct?

Introduction / Context:
Administrative Tribunals in India were introduced to provide specialised and speedy justice in service matters. The Constitution permits their creation and allows them to handle disputes concerning recruitment and service conditions of government employees. However, there are constitutional limits on how far their jurisdiction can go and how much they can restrict the normal powers of the regular courts. This question asks you to identify which statement about these Tribunals is not correct.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- Administrative Tribunals can be created by a law of Parliament under Article 323A of the Constitution.- They deal mainly with service matters of public employees.- The question focuses on jurisdiction and relationship with regular courts.

Concept / Approach:
Article 323A allows Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals for the Union and for States. The law can specify their jurisdiction, the procedure they follow and the extent to which the jurisdiction of courts, except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136, is excluded. Later, in the L Chandra Kumar judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that the power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 cannot be completely taken away. Therefore, while Tribunal decisions are important, they remain subject to oversight by the higher judiciary. Any statement that claims that Parliament can fully block the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, is therefore not constitutionally correct.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Option A states that Parliament may by law create Administrative Tribunals for the Union and for one or more States. This follows directly from Article 323A and is correct.Step 2: Option B says that these Tribunals can look into disputes and complaints regarding recruitment and service conditions of persons appointed to public services and posts. This is precisely their core function and is again correct.Step 3: Option D indicates that the law establishing Tribunals may lay down their procedure and even modify rules of evidence to suit their specialised nature. This matches the flexibility granted by Article 323A.Step 4: Option C claims that Tribunals created by Parliament can exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, so that even special leave appeals under Article 136 are blocked. This is not correct because the Constitution protects the power of judicial review of the Supreme Court and High Courts.Step 5: Therefore, the incorrect statement is the one that suggests complete exclusion of all court jurisdiction, including that of the Supreme Court.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, recall that Article 323A originally allowed exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136. Even this exclusion was later limited by the Supreme Court in L Chandra Kumar, which held that Tribunal decisions are subject to scrutiny by High Courts and the Supreme Court. Hence, any statement indicating that even the Supreme Court jurisdiction can be totally barred is contrary to the basic structure doctrine and is not constitutionally valid.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is correct because Parliament has been given express power to establish such Tribunals for the Union and for the States by law.Option B is correct since Administrative Tribunals are specifically meant to handle disputes about recruitment and service conditions of public servants, which helps reduce the burden on ordinary courts.Option D is correct because the establishing statute can legitimately provide simplified procedures and relaxed rules of evidence suitable for an administrative forum, as long as basic fairness is maintained.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes assume that special tribunals completely replace the role of courts and that there is no further appeal. In Indian constitutional practice, however, higher judicial review remains a key feature. Another common error is not distinguishing between exclusion of jurisdiction of lower courts and the constitutionally protected powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Remember that the basic structure doctrine prevents Parliament from eliminating judicial review altogether, even in specialised areas handled by Tribunals.

Final Answer:
Correct answer: A law of Parliament establishing such Tribunals can completely exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, in order to prevent special leave to appeal