Case law on tribunals in India
🏛️ Tribunals in India – Overview
What is a Tribunal?
A Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body established to adjudicate disputes relating to specific laws. Tribunals are created under statutes and are intended to provide specialized, speedy, and less formal adjudication.
Constitutional Status
Tribunals were not part of the original Constitution.
42nd Amendment Act, 1976 introduced Part XIV-A:
Article 323A: Administrative Tribunals
Article 323B: Other Tribunals (taxation, labour, etc.)
⚖️ Key Case Laws on Tribunals in India – Detailed Explanation
✅ 1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)
Issue:
Validity of setting up Administrative Tribunals under Article 323A and whether they violate judicial independence.
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the exclusion of judicial review by High Courts under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Administrative Tribunals.
However, it emphasized that tribunals must provide an effective substitute for High Courts.
It held that tribunals must be independent, competent, and impartial.
Importance:
First major case upholding tribunals as substitutes for High Courts in service matters.
Laid the foundation for the structure and independence of tribunals.
✅ 2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Issue:
Whether Articles 323A and 323B, which exclude High Court jurisdiction, are constitutional.
Facts:
L. Chandra Kumar challenged the exclusion of writ jurisdiction of High Courts under the Tribunals Act.
Judgment:
The Court overruled Sampath Kumar to an extent.
Held that power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 (High Courts) and Article 32 (Supreme Court) is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded.
Tribunals are supplementary, not substitute to High Courts.
Importance:
Landmark case restoring the primacy of constitutional courts.
Ensured accountability of tribunals to judicial review.
✅ 3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010)
Issue:
Validity of setting up the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Facts:
Challenged the transfer of judicial functions from High Courts to newly created company law tribunals.
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld the creation of NCLT and NCLAT but laid down strict guidelines.
The composition of tribunals must include judicial members.
The selection committee for appointing members must be judicially balanced.
Importance:
Reinforced the need for independence and competence in tribunal appointments.
Prevented excessive executive control over tribunals.
✅ 4. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014)
Issue:
Constitutionality of the provisions under the Companies Act, 2013 relating to NCLT and NCLAT.
Facts:
The Madras Bar Association argued that certain provisions compromised judicial independence.
Judgment:
The Court struck down several provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.
Held that tribunals must be manned predominantly by judicial members.
Appointments must be made with the involvement of the Chief Justice of India or judiciary.
Importance:
Key judgment in ensuring separation of powers and judicial primacy in tribunal appointments.
Strong emphasis on institutional integrity.
✅ 5. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019)
Issue:
Constitutionality of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal, and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017.
Facts:
The challenge was to the 2017 Rules made under the Finance Act, 2017 that gave the executive control over the appointment and conditions of service of tribunal members.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down the 2017 Rules as unconstitutional.
Held that they gave excessive control to the executive, compromising independence.
Directed the government to reframe rules in consultation with the judiciary.
Importance:
Strong check against executive overreach.
Affirmed the importance of judicial independence in tribunal functioning.
✅ 6. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2020)
Issue:
Challenge to the Tribunal Rules, 2020 and the Finance Act, 2017.
Facts:
Petitioners argued that rules regarding appointment, tenure, and removal of tribunal members were arbitrary and controlled by the executive.
Judgment:
Supreme Court partially struck down the Tribunal Rules, 2020.
Reaffirmed that:
Minimum tenure of 5 years is essential.
Selection committees must have judicial dominance.
Advocated for establishment of a National Tribunals Commission.
Importance:
Continuing effort to uphold tribunal independence.
Detailed guidelines for tribunal appointments and structure.
✅ 7. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019)
Issue:
Validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and the role of NCLT and NCLAT under the code.
Facts:
Petitioners argued that the powers of the tribunals under IBC were excessive and lacked adequate judicial oversight.
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of IBC and the jurisdiction of NCLT and NCLAT.
Clarified that these tribunals do not perform judicial review but are adjudicatory bodies under a special law.
Importance:
Clarified the role and limited jurisdiction of tribunals.
Showed that specialized tribunals have legitimacy when structured properly.
📌 Conclusion: Key Learnings from Case Law
| Key Principle | Evolved Through Case Law |
|---|---|
| Judicial review is essential | L. Chandra Kumar |
| Tribunals must have judicial independence | R. Gandhi, Madras Bar Assn. |
| Executive control over tribunals is unconstitutional | Rojer Mathew, MBA (2020) |
| Tribunals are supplementary, not substitutes to courts | L. Chandra Kumar |
| Special tribunals must follow rule of law | Swiss Ribbons |
RELATED Blog
0 comments