👉 Tribunalization of Justice in India: Key Challenges, Reforms & Future Prospects

The "Tribunalization of Justice" refers to the trend of establishing specialized quasi-judicial bodies, known as tribunals, to adjudicate disputes in specific areas of law and administration. This phenomenon in India arose primarily to reduce the burden on traditional courts, provide speedy and cost-effective justice, and leverage specialized expertise in complex matters.

1. Introduction: Understanding Tribunalization

What are Tribunals? Tribunals are quasi-judicial institutions that operate outside the traditional court system. They are endowed with judicial powers to adjudicate on questions of law or fact affecting the rights of citizens, functioning as an alternative mechanism for dispute resolution. Unlike conventional courts, tribunals are not strictly bound by the rigid rules of procedure and evidence prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act; instead, they generally adhere to the principles of natural justice.

Why Tribunalization? The primary objectives behind establishing tribunals include:

• Speedy Justice: To provide faster adjudication of disputes compared to the often-delayed traditional court system.
• Specialization: To bring in domain expertise for technical matters, as tribunals are often manned by specialists in their respective fields (e.g., taxation, environment, service matters).
• Reduced Burden on Courts: To alleviate the immense caseload on the already overburdened High Courts and lower judiciary.
• Cost-Effectiveness: To offer a more inexpensive dispute resolution mechanism.
• Procedural Flexibility: To adopt less formal and more flexible procedures than conventional courts.

2. Historical and Constitutional Background

The concept of tribunalization in India predates independence, with the establishment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in 1941. However, a systematic constitutional framework for tribunals was introduced much later.

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976: This landmark amendment significantly altered the Indian Constitution by inserting Part XIV-A, titled "Tribunals," which comprises two crucial articles: Article 323A and Article 323B. This amendment was based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, which highlighted the burden on High Courts due to service-related cases and suggested the establishment of administrative tribunals. The primary objective of these insertions was to create an efficacious alternative institutional mechanism for specific judicial cases and to exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 (except for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136).

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: In pursuance of Article 323A, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985. This Act provided for the establishment of:

• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): To adjudicate disputes concerning recruitment and conditions of service of Central Government employees.
• State Administrative Tribunals (SATs): To be established by the Central Government on request from state governments to handle service matters of state government employees.
• Joint Administrative Tribunals (JATs): For two or more states.

The Act aimed to provide speedy and inexpensive justice to aggrieved public servants and grant exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, thereby reducing the workload of conventional courts.

3. Key Provisions & Articles

The constitutional basis for tribunals lies predominantly in Part XIV-A of the Constitution.

Article 323A: Administrative Tribunals

• Empowers Parliament to make laws for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, any State, or any local or other authority within India, or any corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
• A law made under this Article may:
  • Provide for the establishment of an administrative tribunal for the Union and a separate one for each State or for two or more States.
  • Specify the jurisdiction, powers (including contempt), and authority of these tribunals.
  • Lay down the procedure (including rules of evidence and limitation).
  • Exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the Supreme Court under Article 136, for matters falling within the tribunal's purview.
  • Provide for the transfer of pending cases from other courts to these tribunals.
  • Contain supplemental, incidental, and consequential provisions.
• Hierarchy: Under Article 323A, only one tribunal for the Centre and one for each state or two or more states may be established, implying no hierarchy of tribunals is envisaged.

Article 323B: Tribunals for Other Matters

• Empowers both Parliament and State Legislatures to provide for the establishment of tribunals for the adjudication of disputes relating to certain other matters within their legislative competence.
• These matters include:
  • Taxation.
  • Foreign exchange, import, and export.
  • Industrial and labour disputes.
  • Land reforms.
  • Ceiling on urban property.
  • Elections to Parliament and State Legislatures.
  • Foodstuffs.
  • Rent and tenancy rights.
• A law made under this Article may:
  • Provide for the establishment of a hierarchy of tribunals.
  • Specify the jurisdiction, powers, and authority.
  • Lay down the procedure.
  • Exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the Supreme Court under Article 136, for matters within the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Key Differences between Article 323A and 323B:

4. Institutional Framework & Functions

Tribunals are designed to act as specialized adjudicatory bodies. Their composition typically includes a blend of judicial members (retired or serving judges) and administrative/technical members (experts in the specific domain).

Types of Tribunals in India: India has numerous tribunals operating across diverse sectors. Some significant examples include:

• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): Handles service-related disputes of Central Government employees.
• State Administrative Tribunals (SATs): Deal with service matters of state government employees.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Adjudicates environmental disputes, protecting the environment and conserving forests.
• National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): Addresses issues related to Indian companies, including insolvency and corporate restructuring.
• National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): Hears appeals against NCLT orders.
• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): Deals with income tax-related appeals.
• Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Adjudicates disputes concerning customs, excise, and service tax.
• Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): Settles disputes related to commission, appointments, enrollments, and conditions of service for armed forces personnel.
• Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Hears appeals against decisions of SEBI, PFRDA, and IRDAI.
• Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT): Manages issues in the telecommunications sector.
• Railway Claims Tribunal: Deals with railway-related claims.
• Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (District, State, National): Address consumer grievances.

Composition of Tribunals: Tribunals are typically composed of a Chairperson and judicial and administrative/technical members.

• Chairperson: Often a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge.
• Judicial Members: May be retired High Court judges, District Judges, or those qualified to be High Court judges, having substantial legal experience.
• Administrative/Technical Members: Usually drawn from civil services or possess specialized expertise in the tribunal's subject matter.

This mixed composition aims to combine legal acumen with practical administrative knowledge for effective dispute resolution.

Visual: Courts vs. Tribunals

5. Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases

The tribunalization of justice in India has been shaped significantly by Supreme Court pronouncements, especially concerning their independence and relationship with the higher judiciary.

• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987):

  • This case challenged the constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, particularly the exclusion of High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.
  • The Supreme Court upheld the Act's validity, emphasizing that tribunals could be effective substitutes for High Courts, provided their independence and efficacy were maintained.
  • It suggested measures to ensure judicial independence, such as the appointment of a Supreme Court judge as the Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal and making appeals from tribunals lie directly to the Supreme Court under Article 136.

• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997):

  • This is a watershed judgment that re-evaluated the constitutional position of tribunals.
  • The Supreme Court declared that the power of judicial review over decisions of tribunals vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 was an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and could not be ousted.
  • It held that tribunals would function as courts of first instance, and appeals from their decisions would lie to a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls, before any appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136. This effectively restored the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over tribunals.
  • The Court also emphasized the need for judicial members to dominate the composition of tribunals and for greater judicial control over their appointments.

• Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010):

  • This case concerned the constitutionality of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) established under the Companies Act, 1956.
  • The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of judicial independence of tribunals and laid down certain principles for their establishment:
    • When a tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction of High Courts, it must be free from executive interference.
    • The composition of tribunals must ensure judicial dominance.
    • Any involvement of the central government in administrative activities of tribunals (e.g., sanctioning leave) would affect their independence.
    • The Court also specified that tribunals must not adjudicate on questions related to the constitutionality of their parent statutes.

• Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014, 2019, 2021 series of judgments):

  • These cases continuously challenged the legislative attempts to dilute judicial independence and efficacy of tribunals, particularly concerning appointment criteria, tenure, and administrative control.
  • 2014 Judgment: Struck down parts of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, primarily on grounds of inadequate judicial control over appointments and conditions of service, holding it an encroachment on judicial power.
  • 2019 Judgment (Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd.): Struck down certain provisions of the Finance Act, 2017, and the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, concerning the uniform conditions of service for tribunal members. The Court highlighted issues such as arbitrary age limits, lack of security of tenure, and executive dominance in the selection process.
  • 2021 Judgment: Struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, and subsequently the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, on similar grounds. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the government re-enacting provisions previously struck down, terming it as an attempt to "nullify" judicial pronouncements and raising concerns about judicial independence and separation of powers.

These judgments collectively affirm that while tribunals play a vital role, their functioning must adhere to constitutional principles, particularly judicial independence, separation of powers, and the availability of judicial review by High Courts.

6. Contemporary Relevance & Challenges

While tribunals offer several benefits, their functioning has been marred by significant challenges, leading to debates about their effectiveness and independence.

Advantages of Tribunalization:

• Specialized Expertise: Members possessing specific knowledge in technical areas lead to better and informed decisions.
• Faster Disposal of Cases: Designed to provide quicker resolution compared to the more protracted court procedures.
• Reduced Backlog: Helps in offloading a substantial volume of cases from regular courts.
• Cost-Effective: Often a cheaper alternative for litigants.
• Procedural Flexibility: Less rigid procedures make them more accessible and user-friendly.

Challenges Faced by Tribunals:

• Lack of Independence: This is a recurring criticism. Executive dominance in the appointment, tenure, and conditions of service of tribunal members undermines their impartiality. Recent legislation, like the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, has been criticized for re-introducing provisions that limit judicial involvement in appointments and tenure, despite Supreme Court disapproval.
• Appointments and Vacancies: Significant delays in filling vacancies lead to a crippling shortage of members, resulting in prolonged pendency, defeating the very purpose of speedy justice.
• Inadequate Infrastructure: Many tribunals suffer from a lack of proper infrastructure, staff, and funding, hindering their efficient functioning.
• Lack of Uniformity: Disparate rules and conditions of service across different tribunals create confusion and inconsistencies.
• Loss of Judicial Review (initially intended): The initial aim to exclude High Court jurisdiction was largely curtailed by L. Chandra Kumar judgment, ensuring judicial oversight. However, attempts to bypass judicial control in appointments and administration persist.
• Erosion of Public Trust: Perceived executive interference or inefficient functioning can erode public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of tribunals.
• Quality of Members: Concerns are sometimes raised about the quality and experience of technical members, who may lack judicial temperament or understanding of legal principles.
• Overburdening of High Courts (again): With the abolition of some tribunals and transfer of their functions to High Courts by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, there is a risk of further burdening the already swamped High Courts.

7. Reforms and Future Prospects

The journey of tribunals in India has been marked by a continuous effort to reform and rationalize their structure and functioning, often catalyzed by judicial interventions.

Past and Recent Reforms:

• Finance Act, 2017: This Act brought significant changes by merging various tribunals based on functional similarity, reducing the total number of tribunals from 26 to 19. It aimed to streamline their operations and empower the Central Government to notify rules on qualifications, appointments, and conditions of service. However, many of its provisions were challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court.
• Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, and the subsequent Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021:
  • This Act aimed to abolish nine appellate tribunals (e.g., Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, Airports Appellate Tribunal) and transfer their functions to existing judicial bodies like High Courts.
  • It also sought to empower the Central Government to make rules for the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries, and allowances of tribunal members.
  • Controversial Provisions: The Act faced strong criticism and challenges in the Supreme Court for re-introducing provisions (like a minimum age of 50 years for appointment and a four-year tenure) that had been previously struck down by the Court, raising serious questions about legislative defiance and judicial independence. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for judicial dominance in search-cum-selection committees.

Recommendations for Future Reforms:

• Ensuring Judicial Dominance in Appointments: Establishing a truly independent selection process, with the Chief Justice of India or his nominee playing a decisive role in the search-cum-selection committees, is paramount.
• National Tribunals Commission (NTC): A long-standing recommendation is to establish an independent, umbrella National Tribunals Commission for the administration, supervision, and appointment of members to all tribunals. This would ensure uniformity, independence, and better resource allocation.
• Clear and Uniform Service Conditions: Standardized terms of office, salaries, allowances, and other conditions of service, insulating them from executive discretion, are essential for attracting competent individuals and ensuring independence.
• Adequate Infrastructure and Staffing: Urgent steps are needed to fill vacancies, provide proper infrastructure, and allocate sufficient financial resources to enable tribunals to function efficiently.
• Training and Capacity Building: Regular training for both judicial and technical members can enhance their adjudicatory skills and understanding of administrative law principles.
• Defined Jurisdiction and Review Mechanisms: Clear demarcation of jurisdiction to avoid overlap with courts and other tribunals, and robust, well-defined appellate and review mechanisms are crucial.
• Transparency and Accountability: Bringing greater transparency in the functioning of tribunals and ensuring accountability for delays and quality of justice.
• Leveraging Technology: Adopting modern technology for e-filing, virtual hearings, and case management can significantly improve efficiency.

8. Comparative Perspective: India vs. UK Tribunals

The tribunal system in the UK offers an interesting comparison.

• UK Model: The UK has a highly structured and unified tribunal system, often referred to as a "single-tier" or "unified tribunal system." The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 established a two-tier structure: the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, covering various jurisdictions (e.g., social entitlement, immigration, tax).
• Key Differences:
  • Integration: The UK system is more integrated into the mainstream judiciary, with clear lines of appeal and often headed by senior judges.
  • Independence: There's a strong emphasis on judicial independence, with appointments largely handled by independent judicial appointments commissions.
  • Harmonization: The unified structure allows for greater harmonization of procedures, training, and standards across different specialized areas.
• Lessons for India: India could learn from the UK's unified structure to bring greater coherence, independence, and professionalism to its diverse and often fragmented tribunal system. An independent National Tribunals Commission could be a step in this direction.

9. Conclusion & Summary

Tribunalization was introduced in India with the laudable goals of specialized, speedy, and cost-effective justice, and to relieve the burden on the regular courts. The 42nd Amendment and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, marked its formal constitutional and legal genesis. While tribunals have played a crucial role in managing administrative and specialized disputes, their journey has been fraught with challenges, particularly concerning judicial independence, executive interference in appointments, and inadequate infrastructure. Landmark Supreme Court judgments, especially L. Chandra Kumar, have consistently reasserted the supervisory role of High Courts and the need for judicial dominance in tribunal administration to preserve the basic structure of the Constitution.

For tribunals to truly fulfill their potential as effective pillars of the justice delivery system, comprehensive reforms focusing on transparent and independent appointment mechanisms, secure tenure and service conditions, robust infrastructure, and a unified administrative framework are imperative. The future prospects of tribunalization hinge on striking a delicate balance between specialization, efficiency, and unwavering adherence to the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.

10. Practice Questions & Answers

A. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. Which Constitutional Amendment Act introduced Part XIV-A relating to Tribunals in the Indian Constitution? a) 24th Amendment Act b) 38th Amendment Act c) 42nd Amendment Act d) 44th Amendment Act

   Answer: c) 42nd Amendment Act Explanation: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, introduced Part XIV-A to the Constitution, which comprises Articles 323A and 323B, specifically dealing with tribunals.

2. Under which Article can Parliament exclusively establish administrative tribunals for service matters? a) Article 323A b) Article 323B c) Article 262 d) Article 309

   Answer: a) Article 323A Explanation: Article 323A empowers only Parliament to make laws for the establishment of administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes relating to recruitment and conditions of service of public servants.

3. Which of the following matters CANNOT be covered by tribunals established under Article 323B? a) Taxation b) Land Reforms c) Service conditions of Central Government employees d) Elections to Parliament and State Legislatures

   Answer: c) Service conditions of Central Government employees Explanation: Article 323B covers a broader range of matters like taxation, land reforms, and elections. Service conditions of Central Government employees fall exclusively under Article 323A.

4. The Supreme Court, in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), held that: a) Tribunals can completely exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts. b) Appeals from tribunals should directly go to the Supreme Court under Article 136. c) The power of judicial review of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 over tribunals is an integral feature of the Constitution. d) Tribunals can determine the constitutional validity of their parent statutes.

   Answer: c) The power of judicial review of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 over tribunals is an integral feature of the Constitution. Explanation: The L. Chandra Kumar judgment unequivocally declared that the power of judicial review of High Courts over tribunals is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted. It mandated appeals from tribunals to a Division Bench of the High Court.

5. The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, aims to: a) Abolish certain tribunals and transfer their functions to High Courts. b) Increase the number of tribunals across various sectors. c) Empower State Legislatures to establish all types of tribunals. d) Reduce judicial oversight over tribunal appointments.

   Answer: a) Abolish certain tribunals and transfer their functions to High Courts. Explanation: The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, sought to dissolve several existing appellate tribunals and shift their functions to the High Courts or other existing judicial bodies.

B. Scenario-Based Questions

1. Scenario: A Central Government employee is dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry, and he wishes to challenge this decision.

   • Question: Which specialized judicial body is the appropriate forum for this employee to seek redressal? What are the constitutional provisions governing this body?
   • Answer: The appropriate specialized judicial body is the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
     • Constitutional Provisions: CAT is established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which derives its authority from Article 323A of the Indian Constitution. Article 323A empowers Parliament to create administrative tribunals specifically for matters concerning the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services under the Union or States.

2. Scenario: The Parliament passes a law establishing a new tribunal to adjudicate disputes related to intellectual property rights, and this law specifies that the decisions of this tribunal will be final and cannot be challenged in any High Court.

   • Question: Discuss the constitutional validity of such a provision, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.
   • Answer: Such a provision, excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts, would likely be unconstitutional.
     • The Supreme Court, in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), definitively held that the power of judicial review of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution (part of the Basic Structure).
     • Therefore, while tribunals can act as courts of first instance, their decisions are ultimately subject to the supervisory and judicial review jurisdiction of the High Courts. Any law attempting to completely oust the High Court's jurisdiction over tribunal decisions would be struck down as violative of the Basic Structure doctrine. Appeals from such a tribunal would first lie to a Division Bench of the High Court.

C. Match-the-following

Match the following landmark judgments with their key pronouncements:

Answer:

1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India - B. Upheld the validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, subject to certain conditions.
2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India - A. High Court's judicial review over tribunals is an essential feature of the Constitution.
3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (Madras Bar Association) - C. Criticized executive dominance in tribunal appointments and re-enactment of struck-down provisions.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE