Finality of tribunal decisions
Introduction
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies created to adjudicate disputes in specific areas like taxation, administrative law, consumer protection, service matters, etc. These are set up to reduce the burden on regular courts, offer specialized adjudication, and provide speedy justice.
Tribunals often have statutory provisions stating that their decisions are final, known as the "finality clause." However, the finality of tribunal decisions is not absolute. Courts, especially High Courts and the Supreme Court, can review or overturn tribunal decisions under certain circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction, error of law, or violation of natural justice.
🔹 Understanding Finality of Tribunal Decisions
Statutory Finality
Most tribunal statutes include phrases like:
“The decision of the tribunal shall be final and binding.”
This does not exclude judicial review unless the statute explicitly bars it and there is an alternative equally effective remedy.
🔹 Key Legal Principles
Finality is subject to judicial review.
Tribunals cannot exceed their jurisdiction.
Decisions obtained in violation of natural justice are not final.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 32 remains unaffected.
🔹 Detailed Case Law
📌 Case 1: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
Facts: The case challenged the constitutional validity of excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 over decisions of tribunals (like CAT).
Held: The Supreme Court held that judicial review by High Courts and Supreme Court is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be ousted.
Significance:
Even if a statute declares tribunal decisions final, High Court's power under Article 226 remains intact.
Tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review.
📌 Case 2: Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1
Facts: Concerned with the formation and powers of the National Tax Tribunal and whether transferring jurisdiction of High Courts to tribunals was constitutional.
Held: Supreme Court held that tribunals cannot replace High Courts, and their decisions are subject to scrutiny under Articles 226/227.
Significance:
Tribunals are subordinate to High Courts in the constitutional hierarchy.
Finality clauses cannot override constitutional powers.
📌 Case 3: Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sunder AIR 1961 SC 1669
Facts: Involved a decision by the Company Law Board, and whether it was subject to appeal or review.
Held: Supreme Court held that even if a decision is called "final" by statute, it is subject to judicial review if it involves violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that "finality" is not equal to immunity from review.
📌 Case 4: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) Supp (2) SCC 651
Facts: Related to anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule and the finality of the Speaker's decision on disqualification of MLAs.
Held: Supreme Court ruled that even the Speaker's decision (declared final in the Constitution) is subject to judicial review.
Significance:
Even constitutional finality can be reviewed if the decision is mala fide or unconstitutional.
📌 Case 5: S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124
Facts: Questioned the replacement of High Courts by administrative tribunals under Article 323A (related to service matters).
Held: The Court upheld the validity of tribunals but made it clear that judicial review must be available either directly or through appellate tribunals.
Significance:
Reinforced that some form of judicial review is essential for tribunal decisions.
📌 Case 6: Rajeev Dhawan v. Union of India (1995)
Facts: Concerned with the finality of decisions by a tribunal in a professional misconduct case.
Held: The Court held that errors of law or procedural unfairness cannot be protected by a finality clause.
Significance:
Legal errors by tribunals can be corrected by superior courts, despite "final" wording in statute.
🔹 Important Doctrines Relevant to Finality
Doctrine of Basic Structure (Kesavananda Bharati case):
Judicial review is part of the basic structure; cannot be ousted.
Principle of Natural Justice:
Any decision made in breach of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) can be struck down.
Ultra Vires Doctrine:
If a tribunal exceeds its statutory authority, its decision is void and not protected by any finality clause.
🔹 Practical Implications
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Tribunal Decision | Binding and final as per statute, but only within its legal jurisdiction |
| High Court Jurisdiction (Art. 226) | Can review decisions for violation of law or fundamental rights |
| Supreme Court (Art. 32) | Can intervene in cases involving fundamental rights |
| Legislative Clause vs Constitution | Constitution prevails – judicial review cannot be excluded |
🔹 Conclusion
While statutes may declare that the decisions of tribunals are final, such finality is not absolute. Courts have repeatedly held that judicial review cannot be ousted, particularly when:
The tribunal has acted without jurisdiction
There is a gross error of law
The decision violates natural justice
There is a breach of fundamental rights
Thus, finality of tribunal decisions is limited and conditional – they must conform to constitutional principles and statutory limits.
RELATED Blog
0 comments