Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: ECONOMICTIMES
Context
The Supreme Court criticized the tribunal system as a "mess" due to systemic flaws like a lack of accountability and executive interference, urging urgent reform for independence and efficiency.
|
Read all about: Tribunals: Born to Unburden the Judiciary l Tribunals in India |
Tribunals are specialized, quasi-judicial institutions established by law to resolve specific types of disputes.
They act as an alternative to traditional courts, aiming to provide faster and more cost-effective justice while reducing the burden on the regular judiciary.
Key Characteristics of Tribunals
Specialized Expertise: Unlike general courts, tribunals are composed of both judicial members (like retired judges) and technical experts who have deep knowledge of specific fields like taxation, environment, or labor.
Procedural Flexibility: They are not strictly bound by formal codes like the Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act. Instead, they follow the principles of natural justice, making their proceedings simpler and more informal.
Speedy Resolution: Focusing on specific sectors and using simplified procedures allows these courts to resolve cases faster than traditional courts.
Binding Decisions: Their rulings are legally binding on the parties involved, though they are subject to judicial review by higher courts, such as High Courts or the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Status
Tribunals were not part of the original Constitution; introduced via the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 under Part XIV-A:
Examples of Tribunals
National Green Tribunal (NGT): Handles cases related to environmental protection and conservation.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): The first tribunal in India (est. 1941), dealing with direct tax appeals.
Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Hears appeals against decisions made by regulators like SEBI.
Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): Adjudicates disputes related to the commission, appointments, and service conditions of military personnel.
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): Deals with corporate and insolvency matters under the Companies Act.
What are the challenges in the effective Functioning of Tribunals?
While tribunals were designed to provide "speedy and specialized" justice, they currently face several systemic issues that have led the Supreme Court of India to describe the system as a "mess".
Executive Dominance and Lack of Independence
Conflict of Interest
As the government is the largest litigant in many tribunals, executive control over the appointments and service conditions of the judges hearing cases against it compromises impartial adjudication.
Appointment & Tenure Control
The Supreme Court struck down parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 in late 2025, ruling that the short 4-year tenures and executive-led selection processes (which gave the government dominant control over appointments) violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Vacancies and High Pendency
Massive Backlogs
Commercial tribunals face a backlog of 356,000 cases, valued at ₹24.72 trillion (7.48% of India's 2024-25 GDP), according to the DAKSH "State of Tribunals 2025" report.
Persistent Vacancies
Delayed appointments of presiding officers and members often cripple tribunals. For example, the Armed Forces Tribunal had nearly 38,000 pending cases across 11 benches as of early 2026 due to unfilled positions.
Contractual Staffing
An over-reliance on temporary, contractual staff (e.g., 382 out of 434 staff at NCLT are on contract) hampers organizational culture and efficiency.
Structural and Procedural Flaws
Lack of Expertise
Despite being "specialized," many technical members are retired bureaucrats who may lack deep domain expertise in complex fields like environmental or insolvency law.
"No-Man's Land" Accountability
There is no centralized oversight body to monitor tribunal performance, leading to what the Supreme Court calls a "vacuum in oversight".
Procedural Inconsistency
Different tribunals follow varying rules, causing confusion for litigants and a lack of uniform justice delivery.
Judicial Overreach and Appeal Cycles
The Supreme Court, in the L. Chandra Kumar Case (1997), upheld the "tribunalization" of justice but mandated that all tribunal decisions be subject to judicial review by High Courts, making tribunals supplementary and adding an extra layer of litigation.
S.P. Sampath Kumar Case (1986)
Confirmed that tribunals are valid substitutes for High Courts if they possess the same efficacy. It mandated that appointments involve consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
L. Chandra Kumar Case (1997)
Struck down clauses excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court as a violation of the Basic Structure. It established that tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review by a Division Bench of the High Court.
R. Gandhi Case (2010)
Ruled that judicial members must not be outnumbered by technical members. It also stated that technical members must possess specialized, secretary-level knowledge.
Rojer Mathew Case (2019)
Struck down executive-led removal provisions and short tenures (e.g., 3 years), noting they increase executive control and undermine judicial independence.
Madras Bar Association Cases (2020–2021)
Reaffirmed the need for a National Tribunals Commission (NTC) to centralize administration. The Court favored a 5-year tenure for members and a retirement age of 67.
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India (2025)
In November 2025, the Court struck down several sections of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
In February 2026, the Supreme Court directed the Union government to present a comprehensive and uniform proposal for the functioning of tribunals to prevent them from becoming "defunct" while awaiting the full operationalization of the NTC.
Establish the National Tribunals Commission (NTC)
Repeatedly directed by the Supreme Court, to create an independent NTC. This umbrella body should:
Ensure Judicial Independence
The selection process must have judicial primacy, and members should be given a longer, fixed tenure to function without fear or favour.
Address Vacancies and Infrastructure
Implement a transparent, time-bound appointment process for vacancies and allocate sufficient funding for infrastructure modernization and e-governance to boost efficiency.
Digital Transformation
Implementing an "e-Tribunals" initiative with real-time case tracking, e-filing, and AI-based management to address backlog.
Learn from Global Best Practices
United Kingdom: The UK's unified tribunal system is managed under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, 2007, with appointments made by the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) for merit-based selection.
Australia: The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) model offers a structure for independent merits review of administrative decisions, emphasizing the importance of a single, self-governing review body.
The key lesson from these models is the importance of a unified administrative body and an independent appointments commission for ensuring credibility.
Tribunals, meant for specialized, swift justice, are failing due to executive overreach, chronic vacancies, and poor accountability. An independent, constitutionally protected National Tribunals Commission is vital to restore their integrity and mandate.
Source: ECONOMICTIMES
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Critically examine the concept of "Tribunalization of Justice" in India. Does it supplement or supplant the traditional judicial hierarchy? 250 words |
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established by law to handle disputes in specific areas like administrative services, taxation, or corporate law. They were created to provide speedy, cost-effective, and expert-driven justice, thereby reducing the caseload of traditional courts.
The constitutional basis for tribunals is Part XIV-A, which was added by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. It contains two articles: Article 323A for administrative tribunals and Article 323B for tribunals on other specific matters.
© 2026 iasgyan. All right reserved