Disadvantages of tribunals
Administrative tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies created to deal with disputes, especially in specialized fields such as tax, service, consumer, and industrial law. While tribunals have many advantages (such as speed, specialization, and cost-effectiveness), they also come with notable disadvantages—particularly in areas of independence, procedural fairness, and accountability.
Below is a detailed explanation of the disadvantages of tribunals, supported by key case law (more than five cases), showing how courts have interpreted and dealt with these issues.
I. Disadvantages of Tribunals (Detailed Explanation)
1. Lack of Independence and Impartiality
Tribunals are often controlled or influenced by the executive branch (especially in appointments and control of finances). This compromises their independence and neutrality.
Case 1: Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1
Facts: This case challenged the constitutionality of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Held:
Supreme Court found that executive control over tribunal appointments and service conditions violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
It emphasized that tribunal members must have security of tenure, fixed service conditions, and judicial independence similar to courts.
Importance:
This case highlighted that lack of independence undermines the legitimacy and trust in tribunals.
2. Violation of Natural Justice
Some tribunals, due to their informal or administrative procedures, fail to follow natural justice, such as the right to be heard or absence of bias.
Case 2: Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1959 SC 308)
Facts: A transport scheme was challenged on the ground that the same officer both heard objections and made the final decision.
Held:
This violated the principle of natural justice—specifically, the rule against bias.
Tribunal decisions must be free from subjective or biased influences.
Importance:
Tribunal procedures must not violate fair hearing rights, even if they are administrative in nature.
3. Inadequate Procedural Safeguards
Tribunals often don’t follow strict rules of evidence or procedure like courts. This flexibility sometimes leads to arbitrariness or unfair practices.
Case 3: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150)
Facts: A member of a selection committee was also a candidate, raising serious conflict of interest.
Held:
Although it was an administrative action, the Court held that natural justice must apply.
Quashed the decision for procedural unfairness.
Importance:
Tribunals, even in administrative actions, must ensure fair procedures, or their decisions can be overturned.
4. No Uniformity in Structure and Procedure
Different tribunals have inconsistent rules, appointment processes, and levels of transparency. This leads to confusion and inequality.
Case 4: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125)
Facts: The constitutionality of excluding High Court jurisdiction under Articles 323A and 323B for tribunal matters was challenged.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that tribunals cannot be substitutes for High Courts.
High Court judicial review is part of the basic structure, and must be available over tribunals.
Importance:
The case exposed the problem of excessive tribunal autonomy and the need for judicial oversight to ensure consistency.
5. Lack of Legal Training and Expertise in Some Tribunals
Many tribunals are staffed by technical experts or bureaucrats, not trained in law, which sometimes results in poor quality judgments.
Case 5: S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 386)
Facts: Challenge to the structure of administrative tribunals set up under Article 323A.
Held:
The Supreme Court allowed the tribunals but insisted they must be effective substitutes for High Courts.
Members must have legal or judicial training, and procedures must be fair.
Importance:
Acknowledged that non-judicial expertise alone is not sufficient—legal competence is essential.
6. Delay in Justice Despite Promise of Speed
Although tribunals were created for quick justice, in reality, many suffer from vacancies, adjournments, and procedural delays.
Case 6: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 1
Facts: The case challenged certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 related to NCLT/NCLAT.
Held:
Tribunals must follow judicial standards, and appointments must be transparent.
Highlighted that tribunal delays arise due to lack of infrastructure, improper staffing, and inefficiency.
Importance:
Even tribunals can become inefficient and slow, defeating their original purpose.
7. Limited Scope of Appeal and Review
In many cases, tribunal decisions are final, or appeals are only allowed to the Supreme Court, making it hard for ordinary litigants to seek redress.
Case 7: State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (AIR 1967 SC 1269)
Facts: Government retired a public servant without giving her a chance to be heard.
Held:
Even administrative orders affecting rights must follow natural justice.
Tribunal-like authorities cannot be allowed to pass decisions without procedural fairness.
Importance:
Tribunal decisions can cause serious civil consequences, so there must be a mechanism for appeal or correction.
II. Summary Table
| Disadvantage | Case Law | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of independence | Union of India v. R. Gandhi | Tribunal structure must ensure judicial independence |
| Violation of natural justice | Gullapalli Rao | Hearing and decision-making must be separate |
| Procedural unfairness | A.K. Kraipak | Natural justice applies to all administrative decisions |
| No uniform standards | L. Chandra Kumar | High Court review is essential for consistency |
| Inadequate legal expertise | S.P. Sampath Kumar | Legal training is essential for tribunal members |
| Delays in justice | Madras Bar Association | Tribunals must be properly staffed and efficient |
| Lack of appeal | Binapani Dei | Procedural fairness is required even in simple orders |
III. Conclusion
While tribunals were created to reduce the burden on courts and provide faster, expert justice, their drawbacks—such as lack of independence, procedural shortcomings, and limited appeal mechanisms—pose serious challenges to the rule of law and fairness in administrative justice.
Judicial oversight and reforms in appointment, structure, and procedures are essential to ensure that tribunals serve their purpose effectively, without compromising the fundamental rights of citizens.
RELATED Blog
0 comments