Recently the Supreme Court of India highlighted several issues of the Tribunals while hearing a petition challenging constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

• Background: The Act was enacted to streamline tribunals by dissolving certain appellate tribunals and transferring their functions to existing judicial bodies like High Courts.
  • It was introduced in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (2021), which struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021.
• Key Provisions
  • Abolition of Tribunals: Multiple appellate tribunals were dissolved, and their functions were shifted to High Courts and other judicial bodies.
  • Search-cum-Selection Committee: Established to recommend the appointment of tribunal chairpersons and members.
    • For Central Tribunals:
    • Chairperson: Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge nominated by the CJI (casting vote).
    • Other Members: Two secretaries nominated by the Central Government, sitting/outgoing chairperson of the tribunal (or a retired Supreme Court judge/Chief Justice of a High Court).
    • Non-voting Member: Secretary of the relevant Union Ministry.
    • For State Administrative Tribunals: Chairperson: Chief Justice of the  respective High Court (casting vote).
    • Other Members: Chief Secretary of the State Government, Chairman of the State Public Service Commission, sitting/outgoing tribunal chairperson, or a retired High Court judge.
• Tenure and Age Limits
  • Chairperson and members have a 4-year tenure, with a minimum age of 50 years.
  • Maximum age limit: 67 years for tribunal members and 70 years for chairpersons, or completion of the 4-year tenure, whichever is earlier.
  • Tribunal chairpersons and members are eligible for reappointment, with preference given to past service.
• Removal of Tribunal Members: The Central Government, based on the recommendation of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, can remove a chairperson or member.

Criticism of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

• Reintroduction of Struck-Down Provisions: The Act was introduced in Lok Sabha just days after the Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.
  • It reinstated the same provisions that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional without addressing the court’s concerns.
• Threat to Judicial Independence: The Act grants the government extensive control over appointments, service conditions, and salaries of tribunal members.
  • This undermines the independence of tribunals and raises concerns about executive overreach.
• Abolition of Key Tribunals: The Act abolished nine important tribunals, transferring their functions to High Courts or other judicial bodies.
  • This has raised concerns about overburdening courts and reducing specialized adjudication.
• Tenure and Appointment Challenges: The four-year tenure under the 2021 Act has discouraged good candidates from joining tribunals.
• Lack of Parliamentary Debate: The Act was passed amidst disruptions in Parliament without adequate discussion. Critics argue this bypassed the necessary legislative scrutiny for such a significant reform.

About Tribunals

• A tribunal is a quasi-judicial body that resolves disputes related to administration, taxation, environment, securities, and other specialized areas.
• Tribunals as an Alternative to Courts: Tribunals in India serve as adjudicatory bodies offering an alternative to the traditional court system. 
• Functions of Tribunals
  • Adjudicating Disputes: Settling legal conflicts between parties.
  • Determining Rights: Deciding entitlements and obligations of contesting parties.
  • Administrative Decisions: Making rulings on policy implementation and enforcement.
  • Reviewing Decisions: Reassessing existing administrative decisions for fairness and legality.

Difference Between Tribunal and Court

Need for Tribunals In India

• Addressing Case Pendency: Tribunals were established to tackle the backlog of cases in various courts.They also help in reducing delays in delivering justice.
•  Reducing Court Workload: By handling specialized disputes, tribunals ease the burden on traditional courts. They allow the judiciary to focus on core legal matters.
• Faster and Efficient Decision-Making: Tribunals expedite dispute resolution compared to lengthy court procedures. Their processes are designed to be more streamlined and time-efficient.
• Expert-Driven Adjudication: Tribunals are staffed by legal professionals and subject-matter experts. This ensures informed and well-reasoned decisions in specialized areas.
• Speedy Resolution: Faster dispute resolution compared to conventional courts.
• Decentralization: Accessibility of justice across different regions.
• Specialised Role in Justice Delivery: They handle disputes in key areas such as:
  • Environment:  Environmental protection and regulatory issues.
  • Armed Forces; Service-related grievances and military disputes.
  • Taxation: Matters related to tax laws and compliance.
  • Administrative Issues: Government policies, service matters, and regulatory decisions.

Salient Features of Tribunals in India

• Adherence to Natural Justice: Tribunals ensure fair hearings for all parties and prohibit self-judgment to uphold impartiality.
• Flexible Procedure: They are not bound by strict Civil Procedure Code (CPC) rules, allowing a more adaptable approach.
• Quasi-Judicial Authority: They can hear evidence, examine witnesses, and issue binding decisions like courts.
• Appellate Mechanism: Decisions can be appealed to higher authorities, including High Courts and the Supreme Court.
• Time-Bound Resolution: Tribunals expedite dispute resolution, reducing delays compared to traditional courts.

Constitutional Provisions Relating To Tribunals

• The Original Constitution did not contain provisions with respect to tribunals. 
• The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added a new Part XIV-A to the Constitution. This part is titled ‘Tribunals’ and consists of only two Articles:
  • Article 323A dealing with administrative tribunals
    • The Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985, which empowers the Central government to establish the Central Administrative Tribunal and state-level administrative tribunals.
  • Article 323B dealing with tribunals for other matters.

Key Differences Between Articles 323A and 323B

Issues Faced By Tribunals in India

• Conflict of Interest: The government, being a major litigant in tribunals, also controls the appointment and removal of tribunal members, raising concerns about impartiality.
  • The executive decides the salary, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members, affecting their autonomy and independence.
• Undermining the Judiciary:
  • Tribunalization of Justice: Tribunals take over judicial functions, reducing the authority of regular courts and violating the separation of powers.
  • Bypassing High Courts: Tribunals often bypass High Court jurisdiction, leading to legal challenges, though the Chandra Kumar case (1997) allowed appeals in High Courts.
• Structural and Administrative Challenges:
  • Non-Uniform Appointment Process: Different tribunals have varied rules on member qualifications, retirement age, and infrastructure, affecting consistency and efficiency.
  • Case Backlogs: Tribunals face significant delays, with the CAT alone having over 44,000 pending cases, as noted in the 272nd Law Commission Report.
  • Persistent Vacancies: Recently, in January this year, the court directed Centre to furnish data on vacancies across all tribunals.

Way Forward

• Ensuring Independence of Tribunals: Tribunals must function independently and not be seen as an extension of the executive.
• Establishing a Separate Administrative Authority: The Supreme Court rulings (L Chandra Kumar (1997), R Gandhi (2010), Madras Bar Association (2014), Swiss Ribbons (2019)) mandate that tribunals should not function under the ministries they adjudicate against.
  • Tribunals should be placed under the Ministry of Law and Justice instead of sectoral ministries.
• Easing Pressure on Constitutional Courts: High Courts should be the final court in most litigation after tribunal rulings, reducing unnecessary cases reaching the Supreme Court.
  • “Special Leave to Appeal” to the Supreme Court should be limited to truly exceptional cases, ensuring judicial consistency and discipline.

Conclusion

A well-structured tribunal system will uphold justice while easing the burden on constitutional courts.

DOWNLOAD PDF