Answer:
APPROACH AND STRUCTURE
THE INTRODUCTION: Introduction with Defining tribunals and their purpose in India with constitutional basis (42nd Amendment Act, Articles 323A and 323B).
THE BODY
-
- Constitutional Validity of Tribunals
- Discuss key Supreme Court judgments
- Highlight the balance between tribunal autonomy and judicial review
- Competency of Tribunals
- Impact on Ordinary Courts’ Jurisdiction
- Diversion of cases from regular courts
- Potential undermining of judicial authority
- Blurring of lines between executive and judiciary
- Concerns about legal expertise and consistency
- Challenges and Criticisms
THE CONCLUSION: Conclusion having Emphasize on the need for balance between specialized tribunals and ordinary courts.
THE INTRODUCTION:
Tribunals in India are quasi-judicial bodies established to provide specialized and efficient adjudication in specific areas, thereby reducing the burden on ordinary courts. They were introduced through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which added Articles 323A and 323B to the Indian Constitution.
THE BODY
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF TRIBUNALS IN INDIA
-
- P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981): Affirmed the constitutional validity of tribunals and upheld their autonomy from the executive.
- Vineet Narain Union of India (1997): Highlighted the importance of tribunals in administrative justice and their role in combating corruption.
- Chandra Kumar Case (1997): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of tribunals but emphasized that they cannot exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court for judicial review. The power of judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
- Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010): The Supreme Court reiterated that tribunals should have qualified members like those in courts to ensure their decisions are competent and fair.
- Jayalalitha UOI (2014): Reiterated that tribunals are integral to the administrative framework and their decisions are subject to judicial review.
- Petroleum Minister Malanjit Singh (2015): Confirmed that tribunals enjoy judicial status, and their decisions carry legal weight comparable to courts.
COMPETENCY OF TRIBUNALS IN INDIA
-
- Specialization: Tribunals are composed of experts in relevant fields, which enhances their ability to handle complex issues effectively.
- Efficiency: They provide quicker resolutions compared to ordinary courts, thus reducing judicial backlog.
- Accessibility: Tribunals like the Central Administrative Tribunal have multiple benches nationwide, making them more accessible to litigants.
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Each tribunal can address a defined scope of issues. The NGT deals with environmental issues.
- Appellate Jurisdiction: Some tribunals have appellate powers over decisions of lower administrative bodies or authorities.
- Procedural Competence: Tribunals follow fewer formal procedures than ordinary courts, facilitating faster resolutions.
- There has been increasing reliance on tribunals to adjudicate disputes traditionally handled by ordinary courts. This shift diverts cases from the judiciary, potentially undermining the authority and workload of regular courts. Specialized tribunals like the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for environmental cases have siphoned significant environmental litigation from High Courts and the Supreme Court.
- Tribunals, blur the lines between the executive and judiciary, potentially infringing upon judicial independence. Articles 50 and 51 emphasize the separation, which tribunals may inadvertently violate by overlapping judicial functions without adequate checks.
- In Union of India vs. K. Raghuveer Reddy (2016), The Supreme Court highlighted the need for High Courts to exercise more control over tribunal functioning.
- Tribunals often comprise experts from technical fields rather than legally trained judges. This practice can lead to decisions that lack legal rigor, undermining the quality and consistency of justice.
- Tribunals often have restricted appellate avenues, forcing litigants to approach multiple forums and fragment judicial processes. This fragmentation can create legal interpretations and outcomes inconsistencies.
- Tribunals operate under varied procedural rules, leading to inconsistent justice applications compared to standardized court procedures.
- As tribunals handle more specialized cases, judges may lose touch with these areas, leading to a lack of expertise in ordinary The rise of tribunals has inadvertently marginalized the judiciary, impacting its role as the ultimate arbiter of justice.
- Judicial Reforms Committee (Ranganathan Committee) recommended integrating tribunals into the formal judicial system to ensure uniform oversight and prevent jurisdictional conflicts.
THE CONCLUSION:
Empower High Courts and the Supreme Court to exercise more robust supervisory and appellate oversight over tribunal decisions, ensuring adherence to legal standards and accountability. Article 227 empowers High Courts to supervise all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction, a power that needs to be actively exercised.
Spread the Word