TRIBUNALS IN INDIA

Introduction to Tribunals in India

Tribunals are quasi judicial institutions established to adjudicate disputes in specialized areas such as taxation, administrative services, corporate affairs, environmental issues, telecommunications & more. Their primary purpose is to offer an alternative to traditional court systems which often suffer from delays due to heavy caseloads. Tribunals aim to:

• Ensure speedy justice.
• Leverage domain expertise.
• Reduce procedural rigidity. Unlike traditional courts tribunals are not strictly bound by Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act. They follow the principles of natural justice which emphasize fairness & right to be heard.

Key Features of Tribunals

• Quasi-judicial Nature:Tribunals possess powers similar to courts such as summoning witnesses, requiring document production & delivering judgments. However they operate with more procedural flexibility.
• Autonomy:Although functioning independently some tribunals are criticized for executive interference especially in appointments.
• Role in Governance:Tribunals act as a bridge between the judiciary & administrative authorities offering specialized mechanisms to resolve disputes related to government policies, regulations & compliance matters.

Constitutional Basis for Tribunals

Tribunals in India derive their authority from both constitutional provisions & statutory laws. The constitutional foundation was laid through the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 which introduced Articles 323-A & 323-B.

Key Constitutional Provisions

Article 323-A (Administrative Tribunals):

• • Empowers Parliament to establish tribunals for adjudicating disputes concerning recruitment & service conditions of public servants.
  • Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): Handles disputes related to civil services under central government.
  • State Administrative Tribunals (SATs): Established by states to handle service related disputes of state government employees.

Article 323-B (Other Tribunals):

• • • Empowers both Parliament & State Legislatures to create tribunals for matters beyond administrative services including:

• Taxation disputes (e.g. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal– ITAT)
• Industrial disputes
• Land reforms
• Elections
• Corporate law (e.g. National Company Law Tribunal– NCLT)
• Environmental issues (e.g. National Green Tribunal– NGT)

Article 136 (Special Leave Petition):

• • Grants Supreme Court discretionary power to hear appeals against decisions of any tribunal. This ensures judicial oversight & prevents tribunals from becoming the final authority.

Articles 226 & 227 (Judicial Review):

• • • Empower High Courts to review tribunal decisions reinforcing checks & balances. This was strongly affirmed in L. Chandra Kumar case (1997) which established that tribunals are subject to jurisdiction of High Courts.

Article 50 (Separation of Powers):

• • • • Advocates separation of the judiciary from the executive. This raises concerns regarding tribunals because executive involvement in their functioning & appointments may compromise judicial independence.

Evolution of Tribunals in India

Pre 1976 Period

• Tribunals existed even before the constitutional amendment established under various statutory laws.
• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal established in 1941 functioned without constitutional backing but provided specialized adjudication in tax matters.
• However there was no uniform structure or constitutional legitimacy leading to inconsistencies in their roles as well as powers.

Post 1976

• The 42nd Amendment institutionalized tribunals within the constitutional framework introducing Articles 323-A & 323-B.
• This aimed to:
  • Reduce the burden on traditional courts.
  • Ensure specialized, speedy justice.
  • Create a uniform structure for administrative & other tribunals.

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

• Significance:Asserted that tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts &  Supreme Court.
• Key Rulings:
  • Tribunals are not substitutes for High Courts.
  • Struck down provisions that barred High Court jurisdiction over tribunal decisions reinforcing the supremacy of the judiciary.
  • Emphasized that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution& cannot be removed.

Recent Developments – Tribunal Reforms Act 2021

Aimed to streamline tribunal operations & reduce redundancy.

Key Changes:

• Abolition of certain tribunals:g. Film Certification Appellate Tribunal.
• Centralized Appointment Process:Introduced a uniform selection process through the Central Selection Committee reducing the role of judicial bodies in appointments.

Criticism: Raised concerns about executive overreach affecting the independence of tribunals.

Classification of Tribunals

Tribunals can be categorized based on jurisdiction, subject matter, function.

Based on Jurisdiction:

Central Tribunals:

• • Operate nationwide established by central government.
  • Examples:
• National Company Law Tribunal.
• National Green Tribunal.
• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
• Armed Forces Tribunal.

State Tribunals:

• • Established by individual states operating within state boundaries.
  • Examples:
• State Administrative Tribunals (SATs):Handle state government employee disputes.
• Revenue Tribunals:Deal with land revenue & tenancy disputes.

Based on Subject Matter:

1. Administrative Tribunals:
   • Resolve disputes related to government service conditions.
   • Examples: Central Administrative Tribunal, SATs.
2. Tax Tribunals:
   • Handle appeals related to income tax, customs, excise, GST.
   • Examples: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
3. Corporate Tribunals:
   • Address company law matters, mergers, insolvency etc.
   • Examples: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
4. Environmental Tribunals:
   • Focus on environmental conservation & legal compliance.
   • Example: National Green Tribunal (NGT).
5. Banking and Finance Tribunals:
   • Handle cases related to debt recovery and insolvency.
   • Examples: Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs).
6. Armed Forces Tribunal deals with service-related disputes and court-martial appeals for military personnel.
7. Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal adjudicates disputes in the telecom & broadcasting sectors.

Composition & Functioning of Tribunals

Composition of Tribunals:

Tribunals are typically composed of both judicial members & technical/subject-matter experts ensuring that decisions are informed by legal principles & technical knowledge.

1. Judicial Members:
   • Usually retired or serving judges from High Courts or Supreme Court.
   • They ensure that the legal framework & principles of natural justice are followed.
   • Example: In National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chairperson is often a retired Supreme Court judge.
2. Technical Members:
   • Experts from relevant fields such as finance, environment, taxation, corporate law or military services.
   • Their role is to bring domain-specific knowledge to complex cases.
   • Example: In National Green Tribunal (NGT) technical members may include environmental scientists & policy experts.
3. Chairperson/President:
   • Heads the tribunal often a senior judicial figure.
   • Responsible for administrative functions & presiding over key cases.
4. Term of Office:
   • Members typically serve for a fixed tenure (often 4–5 years) with an upper age limit (usually around 65–70 years).
   • The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 standardized term to 4 years with eligibility for reappointment.

Appointment Process:

The appointment process for tribunal members has evolved over time balancing between executive control & judicial independence.

1. Pre-2021 Reforms:
   • Appointments involved judicial oversight with recommendations from judiciary often Chief Justices playing a key role.
   • This ensured judicial independence & minimized executive interference.
2. Post-2021 Reforms:
   • Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 centralized appointments through a Search cum Selection Committee dominated by executive members.
   • Supreme Court criticized this in judgments like Madras Bar Association case (2021) arguing it compromised the independence of tribunals.
3. Current Structure:
   • The Selection Committee usually comprises:

• A senior judge (from Supreme Court or High Court)
• Representatives from the executive (e.g. Law Secretary, Ministry officials)
• Subject-matter experts

Powers and Functions:

Tribunals possess powers similar to civil courts but operate with greater flexibility.

1. Quasi-Judicial Powers:
   • Summoning witnesses
   • Requiring production of documents
   • Administering oaths
   • Reviewing their own decisions in some cases
2. Adjudicatory Functions:
   • Dispute resolution in specialized areas (tax, corporate law, environment etc.)
   • Imposing penalties, fines or sanctions based on the nature of the case
3. Appellate Jurisdiction:
   • Many tribunals serve as appellate bodies reviewing decisions made by lower authorities or regulatory bodies.
   • Example: NCLAT hears appeals against decisions of NCLT.
4. Procedural Flexibility:
   • Not strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or Indian Evidence Act.
   • They follow principles of natural justice ensuring fairness without rigid legal formalities.

Jurisdiction and Scope of Tribunals

Tribunals operate at multiple levels with specific jurisdictional mandates:

Original Jurisdiction:

• Tribunals have the authority to hear cases for the first time acting as primary forum for certain disputes.
• Example:
  • National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)has original jurisdiction over corporate insolvency cases.
  • Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)hears service-related disputes involving central government employees.

Appellate Jurisdiction:

• Many tribunals act as appellate bodies reviewing decisions from regulatory authorities or subordinate bodies.
• Example:
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)hears appeals against orders from income tax authorities.
  • National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)hears appeals against NCLT orders.

Supervisory Jurisdiction:

• Some tribunals have supervisory powers over subordinate tribunals or administrative bodies within their domain.
• They can review, modify or overturn decisions if legal errors are identified.

Limited Jurisdiction Compared to High Courts:

• Unlike constitutional courts tribunals cannot:
  • Issue writs(like habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari etc.).
  • Handle constitutional matters or fundamental rights issues.
• This limitation was emphasized in the  Chandra Kumar case (1997) which held that High Courts retain supervisory jurisdictionover tribunals.

Landmark Cases Related to Tribunals

Several judicial decisions have shaped the framework, independence & functioning of tribunals in India.

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

• Issue:Whether tribunal decisions could be excluded from High Court jurisdiction.
• Ruling:
  • Tribunals are not substitutesfor High Courts.
  • Their decisions are subject to judicial reviewby High Courts under Articles 226 & 227.
  • Judicial review is part of basic structure of the Constitution& cannot be taken away.
• Impact:Strengthened judicial oversight over tribunals ensuring constitutional checks & balances.

Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010):

• Issue:Validity of the composition of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
• Ruling:
  • Upheld the constitutional validity of NCLT & NCLAT.
  • However emphasized that tribunals must have adequate judicial representationto ensure independence.
• Impact:Reinforced the need for a balance between judicial & technical members in tribunals.

Madras Bar Association Cases (2014 & 2021):

• Issue:Challenges to the appointment process & tenure of tribunal members under Tribunal Reforms Act.
• Ruling:
  • Criticized excessive role of the executivein tribunal appointments.
  • Directed government to ensure judicial independencethrough proper selection committees & longer tenures for members.
• Impact:Highlighted importance of autonomy in tribunal functioning free from executive interference.

Sampath Kumar Case (1987):

• Issue:Whether tribunals could replace High Courts in administrative matters.
• Ruling:
  • Initially upheld the constitutional validity of tribunals replacing High Courts for service matters.
  • However this view was later overruled by the  Chandra Kumar case.

Challenges and Criticisms of the Tribunal System

While tribunals have improved efficiency in dispute resolution they face several challenges:

Lack of Judicial Independence:

• Executive dominancein appointments, tenure decisions, administrative control compromises the autonomy of tribunals.
• The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021exacerbated these concerns by reducing role of the judiciary in the selection process.

Inconsistent Standards:

• Lack of uniformityin tribunal procedures across different sectors leads to legal uncertainties.
• Varying levels of expertise among tribunal members affect the quality of judgments.

1. Delays and Backlogs:

• Despite being established to reduce delays many tribunals face the same problem due to vacant positions, resource constraint & procedural inefficiencies.
• Example:National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has significant backlogs in insolvency cases.

Limited Access to Justice:

• Some tribunals are located in urban centers making it difficult for people from remote areas to access them.
• High costs & complex procedures discourage individuals from approaching tribunals directly.

Constitutional Concerns:

• Tribunals cannot address constitutional issuesor fundamental rights violations leading to additional litigation in High Courts.
• This defeats the purpose of speedy justice as cases often return to constitutional courts for final review.

Way Forward

To address these challenges several reforms have been proposed:

Strengthening Judicial Independence:

• Establish independent selection committeeswith a majority of judicial members.
• Ensure security of tenure & protection from arbitrary removal.

Improving Efficiency:

• Fill vacant positionspromptly to reduce backlogs.
• Introduce e-governance toolsfor faster case management & online hearings.

Uniform Tribunal Framework:

• Implement National Tribunals Commission (NTC)to oversee all tribunals ensuring consistency in appointments, salaries, procedures.
• This was recommended by Law Commission of India.

Enhancing Access to Justice:

• Establish regional benchesof tribunals to improve accessibility.
• Simplify procedures to make tribunals more user friendlyfor litigants without legal representation.

Reducing Executive Interference:

• Amend laws to limit the role of the executive in appointment & functioning of tribunals.
• Uphold principle of separation of powersas mandated by Article 50 of the Constitution.

Impact of New Criminal Laws on Tribunals

Introduction to New Criminal Laws (2023 Reforms):

In 2023 Indian Parliament passed three key bills replacing the colonial-era criminal laws:

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – replacing Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
3. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 replacing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

These reforms aim to modernize criminal justice with a focus on victim-centric justice, technology integration & speedy trials.

Key Changes Under New Criminal Laws:

1. Faster Investigation and Trial:
   • Mandatory completion of police investigations within 90 days (extendable by 30 days in special cases).
   • Courts to deliver judgments within 45 days of trial completion.
   • Impact: This timeline pressure may spill over to quasi-judicial tribunals dealing with criminal or regulatory offenses pushing them towards faster adjudication models.
2. Increased Use of Technology:
   • Introduction of electronic evidence & digital documentation as primary proof.
   • Video conferencing for recording statements & conducting hearings.
   • Impact: Tribunals like Cyber Appellate Tribunal & SEBI Tribunal will need to upgrade their IT infrastructure for evidence handling & virtual hearings.
3. Introduction of New Offenses:
   • New categories like organized crime, terrorism financing & cybercrimes have been explicitly defined.
   • Impact: Specialized tribunals like National Investigation Agency (NIA) Tribunal may witness an increased caseload related to organized crime & terrorism requiring domain-specific legal training for members.
4. Victim-Centric Justice:
   • Victim’s right to be heard at every stage of trial including bail hearings.
   • Impact: Tribunals dealing with compensation claims (e.g. Motor Accident Claims Tribunals) may adopt a more victim oriented approach in proceedings.

Direct Impact on Specific Tribunals:

1. Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT):
   • New definitions of crimes (like terrorism & organized violence) will influence how offenses under military code are interpreted.
   • Faster trial mandates may affect court-martial reviews.
2. National Green Tribunal (NGT):
   • Environmental offenses causing significant harm (e.g. illegal waste dumping) could now be prosecuted more strictly under new criminal definitions.
   • Impact: NGT may see more criminal liability cases alongside its civil jurisdiction.
3. Cyber Appellate Tribunal:
   • The focus on cybercrimes under the new laws will increase the tribunal’s workload.
   • Need for updated expertise in digital forensics & cyber regulations.
4. Economic Offense Tribunals like PMLA Appellate Tribunal:
   • Stricter provisions against money laundering & financial crimes.
   • Impact: Increased caseload related to economic offenses & cross-border crimes.

Jurisdictional Shifts:

1. Some criminal appellate functions may move to specialized tribunals rather than regular criminal courts.
2. Tribunals may get expanded jurisdiction to handle overlapping regulatory & criminal matters (e.g. financial frauds involving corporate law violations).
3. Potential creation of new tribunals for emerging areas like cyber terrorism, organized crime, AI-related offenses.

Challenges for Tribunals Post-Reform:

1. Capacity Constraints: Tribunals may face increased caseloads without corresponding increases in judicial capacity.
2. Need for Specialized Training: Members will require training in criminal procedures especially for handling new offenses like cybercrime.
3. Overlapping Jurisdiction: Potential conflicts between tribunals & criminal courts over case jurisdiction. Need for legislative clarity to prevent jurisdictional disputes.
4. Ensuring Due Process: Tribunals must adapt to stricter evidentiary standards under new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

The Way Forward:

• Amend existing tribunal laws to align with new criminal codes.
• Continuous training for tribunal members on new criminal provisions.
• Investment in IT systemsfor e-evidence management & virtual hearings.
• Clear guidelines for coordination between criminal courts & tribunalsto avoid jurisdictional conflicts.

Practice Questions

UPSC Prelims Questions

With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:

1. 1. Tribunals established under Article 323-A can only deal with service matters.
   2. Tribunals established under Article 323-B can deal with matters related to taxation, labor, land reforms, and elections.
      Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (c)

Consider the following statements regarding the Finance Act, 2017:

1. 1. It merged several tribunals based on functional similarity.
   2. It empowered the central government to decide qualifications and terms of service of tribunal members.
      Which of the above statements is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (c)

With reference to the ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)’, consider the following statements:

1. 1. The Constitution (99th Amendment) Act provided for the NJAC.
   2. The Supreme Court declared the NJAC unconstitutional.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (c)

Consider the following statements about the doctrine of separation of powers in the Indian context:

1. 1. The doctrine is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
   2. Tribunals perform quasi-judicial functions, blurring the separation of powers.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (b)

UPSC Mains Questions

1. The role of tribunals in the Indian judicial system has been evolving over the years. Critically analyze the constitutional validity and effectiveness of tribunals in delivering justice.
2. Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission and its implications for judicial independence.
3. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 aims to streamline the tribunal system in India. Analyze its key provisions and the concerns raised regarding the independence of the judiciary.
4. The delay in disposal of cases by tribunals defeats the very purpose for which they were established. Examine the causes of delays and suggest measures for improving their efficiency.
5. The new criminal law codes aim to overhaul criminal justice system of india. Discuss their potential impact on the functioning of tribunals in India.
6. Judicial reforms in India must focus not only on reducing pendency but also on ensuring access to justice. In this context, evaluate the role of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms and tribunals.
7. How will the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 impact the adjudicatory framework of specialized tribunals in India? Discuss with examples.
8. Examine the constitutional challenges associated with the establishment and functioning of tribunals under Article 323-A and 323-B.
9. Critically evaluate the impact of technology-driven reforms in the new criminal laws on the functioning of quasi-judicial bodies in India.

For more such articles on important topics for UPSC, please visit Resources at APTI PLUS the best coaching institute for IAS Coaching in Kolkata and Bhubaneshwar.