Tribunals

Tribunals represent a vital component of India’s legal landscape, serving as quasi-judicial bodies designed to resolve disputes across a range of domains, including administration, taxation, environmental issues, and securities regulation. As alternatives to traditional court systems, tribunals offer expeditious, cost-effective, and decentralized mechanisms for dispute resolution. This blog delves into the concept of tribunals, their functions, significance, and their role in providing accessible justice.

A tribunal is a quasi-judicial entity tasked with resolving disputes related to administration, taxation, environmental matters, securities, and other areas. In India, tribunals serve as an alternative to conventional courts, offering faster, more affordable, and decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms. They undertake various functions such as resolving disputes, determining rights between conflicting parties, issuing administrative decisions, reviewing existing administrative rulings, and more.

Constitutional Provision

The original Constitution did not include provisions regarding tribunals. However, the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced a new section titled ‘Tribunals’ into the Constitution. This section comprises only two Articles: Article 323A, addressing administrative tribunals, and Article 323B, addressing tribunals for other matters.

Features of Tribunals

Principles of Natural Justice: Tribunals in India adhere to the principles of natural justice, ensuring fair and impartial hearings for all parties involved and avoiding situations where individuals judge their own cases.
Freedom from Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Constraints: Unlike conventional courts, tribunals are not bound by the rigid procedural and evidentiary rules outlined in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Specialized Expertise: Tribunals often consist of members with specialized knowledge and expertise relevant to the subject matter they handle, enhancing the quality of decision-making.
Quasi-Judicial Powers: Tribunals possess quasi-judicial powers, enabling them to hear evidence, examine witnesses, determine facts, apply legal principles, and issue binding rulings.
Appellate Mechanism: Decisions made by tribunals can be appealed to higher courts, providing a mechanism for review. Appeals may be made to appellate authorities, High Courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court.
Timely Resolution: Tribunals typically offer faster resolution of disputes compared to traditional courts, facilitating efficient and timely resolution of legal matters.

Classification of Tribunals

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) holds original jurisdiction over recruitment and all service-related issues concerning public servants under its purview. This includes members of the All-India services, Central civil services, civil posts under the Central government, and civilian employees of defense services. However, it does not cover members of the defense forces, officers and staff of the Supreme Court, and the secretarial staff of Parliament. The appointment of the CAT’s chairman and members is made by the President after consulting with the Chief Justice of India.

State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)

The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 grants authority to the Central government to establish State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) upon the request of respective state governments. Similar to the CAT, SATs hold original jurisdiction over recruitment and all service-related matters concerning employees of state governments. The appointment of SATs’ chairman and members is carried out by the President after consulting with the Governor of the relevant state.

Joint Administrative Tribunal (JAT)

The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 includes a provision for establishing Joint Administrative Tribunals (JAT) to serve two or more states. A JAT possesses the same jurisdiction and powers as individual administrative tribunals for the states involved. The appointment of JAT’s chairman and members is made by the President after consulting with the Governors of the respective states.

Issues face by Tribunals

Conflict of Interest: The government, a major litigant in tribunals, also controls the appointment and removal of tribunal members, posing a conflict of interest.
Tribunalization of Justice: Tribunals diminish the authority of regular courts, undermining judicial power and violating the principle of separation of powers.
Lack of Independence: Executive control over tribunal members’ salary, office conditions, and tenure compromises tribunal independence.
Overlapping Jurisdiction: Some tribunals, like COMPAT and NCLT, exhibit overlapping jurisdiction, leading to inefficiencies and confusion.
Jurisdiction of High Courts: Tribunals have been criticized for bypassing High Courts’ jurisdiction, partially addressed by the Chandra Kumar Case allowing appeals in High Court division benches.
Administrative Concerns: Non-uniformity in appointment processes, member qualifications, retirement age, and resources across different tribunals under various ministries impairs overall efficiency.
Pendency: High backlog in tribunals, such as the CAT with 44,333 pending cases, is largely due to personnel shortages.
Persisting Vacancies: Significant vacancies, including 20 presiding officers, 110 judicial members, and 111 technical members across various tribunals, were noted by the Supreme Court in 2021.

Way Forward

National Tribunal Commission: The 74th report of the Parliamentary standing committee on Law suggested the establishment of a National Tribunal Commission (NTC) to address issues related to tribunals, such as overseeing the selection process and setting eligibility criteria for appointments.
Timely Appointments: Ensuring prompt appointments to tribunals is crucial to prevent delays in the delivery of justice.
Independence and Autonomy: It’s essential that the appointment, removal, and terms of service of tribunal members remain free from political influence to uphold their independence and autonomy.
Rationalization of Tribunals: India currently has numerous tribunals, resulting in function duplication and overlapping jurisdictions. Rationalizing tribunals could streamline their operations and enhance their effectiveness.