Constitutional validity of tribunals in India
🏛️ Constitutional Validity of Tribunals in India
1. Introduction
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies created to reduce the burden on courts, specialize in technical matters, and speed up adjudication. The Constitution of India recognizes tribunals under:
Article 323A – for administrative tribunals.
Article 323B – for other tribunals dealing with taxation, industrial disputes, land reforms, etc.
These Articles were added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
2. Purpose of Establishing Tribunals
Speedy and expert resolution of disputes.
Reduce the workload of regular courts.
Provide an alternative to the traditional judicial system.
However, constitutional challenges have been raised regarding:
Violation of judicial independence.
Replacement of High Courts’ jurisdiction.
Appointment and tenure of tribunal members.
Lack of adherence to principles of natural justice.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Constitutional Validity of Tribunals
✅ 1. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 386
Facts: The case challenged the constitutional validity of Administrative Tribunals under Article 323A, specifically the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Issue: Whether exclusion of High Court jurisdiction violates basic structure of the Constitution?
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of tribunals.
Held that tribunals can replace High Courts, but they must provide equally effective adjudicatory mechanisms.
Established that judicial review is part of the basic structure, and tribunals must not impair it.
Importance:
Tribunals are constitutionally valid only if they maintain the standards of justice as expected from regular courts.
✅ 2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 1125
Facts: The petitioner challenged the exclusion of jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court under Articles 226, 227, and 32 by tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B.
Issue: Can Parliament exclude judicial review of High Courts and Supreme Court?
Judgment:
Struck down the exclusion of High Court and Supreme Court jurisdiction.
Declared that judicial review under Articles 32, 226, and 227 is part of the basic structure.
Held that tribunals are subordinate to High Courts, and their decisions are subject to judicial review.
Importance:
Reaffirmed supremacy of the judiciary.
Ensured that tribunals cannot replace High Courts in the constitutional hierarchy.
✅ 3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010)
Citation: AIR 2010 SC 718
Facts: Concerned the constitutional validity of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Appellate Tribunal.
Issue: Whether the structure and appointment process of NCLT violated judicial independence?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of NCLT and NCLAT.
However, laid down strict guidelines:
Members must have judicial experience.
Appointments and service conditions should ensure independence from executive interference.
There must be a judicial dominance in the composition of the selection committee.
Importance:
Recognized tribunals as valid judicial bodies, but emphasized judicial independence as essential.
✅ 4. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014)
Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1571
Facts: Again challenged the constitutional validity of NCLT and NCLAT, especially in light of changes brought by the Companies Act, 2013.
Issue: Whether appointment procedures under the new law compromised independence of the judiciary?
Judgment:
Reiterated the decision in R. Gandhi’s case.
Struck down provisions that gave excessive control to the executive in appointments.
Directed the government to modify rules in line with judicial independence.
Importance:
Reinforced that constitutional validity of tribunals depends on maintaining judicial standards.
Prevented executive dominance in judicial bodies.
✅ 5. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019)
Citation: AIR 2019 SC 739
Facts: The challenge was to the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), especially the role of NCLT and NCLAT.
Issue: Whether the powers conferred on NCLT under IBC violate constitutional principles?
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld the validity of NCLT/NCLAT.
Held that they were well-structured, judicially independent, and had sufficient checks and balances.
Noted that judicial members were qualified judges, ensuring fair adjudication.
Importance:
Recognized that well-designed tribunals can serve as constitutional adjudicatory bodies.
Strengthened the credibility of tribunalization in economic and commercial law.
✅ 6. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2020) (Challenge to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021)
Facts: The government introduced the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance and later the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, reducing tenure of tribunal members and increasing executive control.
Issue: Does this law violate principles of judicial independence?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down several provisions:
Reduced tenure of tribunal members.
Lack of judicial dominance in selection.
Reiterated that executive interference in tribunals weakens their constitutional validity.
Importance:
Strong pushback against dilution of judicial independence.
Established that constitutional legitimacy of tribunals rests on preserving independence from the executive.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Holding |
|---|---|
| Sampath Kumar (1987) | Tribunals valid if they offer equal justice as courts |
| L. Chandra Kumar (1997) | Exclusion of High Court/Supreme Court jurisdiction is unconstitutional |
| R. Gandhi (2010) | NCLT/NCLAT valid, but must ensure judicial independence |
| Madras Bar Assoc. (2014) | Appointment rules must prevent executive dominance |
| Swiss Ribbons (2019) | NCLT/NCLAT under IBC are constitutionally valid |
| Madras Bar Assoc. (2020) | Tribunal Reforms Act partly unconstitutional |
🏁 Conclusion
The constitutional validity of tribunals in India has been consistently upheld, but with conditions:
They must not replace the constitutional role of High Courts.
They must adhere to principles of natural justice.
Their structure and appointments must ensure judicial independence.
Executive interference must be minimized.
The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in shaping tribunal jurisprudence, ensuring that while tribunals can function as efficient alternatives to courts, they must conform to constitutional values.
RELATED Blog
0 comments