TAG: GS 2: POLITY AND GOVERNANCE
THE CONTEXT: Recently, the Supreme Court has clarified that tribunals functioning under the strict parameters of their governing legislations cannot direct the government to make policy.
EXPLANATION:
- The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India addressed the limitations imposed on tribunals in directing governmental bodies to formulate policies, emphasizing that such an action falls beyond the purview of the judiciary.
Jurisdiction of Tribunals and Policy Making
- In the specific instance involving the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and its attempt to instruct the government to formulate a policy for appointing the Judge Advocate General (Air), the Supreme Court provided clarity on the jurisdictional boundaries within which tribunals, such as the AFT, operate.
- Acknowledging their role as quasi-judicial bodies, the Court emphasized that these entities must adhere to the limitations prescribed by their respective governing laws.
- Despite their adjudicatory functions, they do not possess the legal authority to compel or enforce the government to create policies.
Judicial Review and Policy Making
- The bench emphasized that policy-making remains outside the judiciary’s realm.
- While recognizing the AFT’s authority akin to a civil court, the Court highlighted that tribunals, including higher courts like the Supreme Court and High Courts, cannot issue directives to the government for legislation or policy formation.
Scope of Judicial Intervention
- The judgment further reinforced that even under Article 226 of the Constitution, which grants High Courts writ jurisdiction, directives mandating policy formation cannot be issued to governmental departments.
- It elucidated that decisions regarding the establishment, sanction, or structuring of policies related to defense personnel services rest solely with the government, considering it as the government’s prerogative.
Boundaries of Tribunal Powers
- The ruling emphasized that a tribunal, functioning strictly within the limitations outlined by its governing legislation, lacks the authority to compel the creation of policies or schemes.
- The judgment emphasized that even courts with writ jurisdiction, often confronted with issues seemingly in conflict with fundamental rights, are not empowered to mandate policy creation.
Conclusion
- The Supreme Court’s verdict reinforces the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive branch.
- It clarifies that while tribunals serve a crucial role in adjudication, they are confined to interpreting laws rather than instructing or influencing the government’s policy-making prerogatives.
- This verdict delineates the jurisdictional boundaries of tribunals, highlighting that the formulation of policies or schemes remains exclusively within the domain of the government, beyond the purview of tribunals or courts.