Independence of tribunals
🔷 Introduction
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to reduce the burden on courts and specialize in adjudication of disputes in specific areas such as taxation, administrative matters, environment, and service matters.
To maintain the rule of law and fairness in decision-making, tribunals must be independent and impartial — free from executive interference.
🔷 Why Independence of Tribunals is Crucial
To protect the integrity of adjudication
To ensure natural justice and fairness
To uphold the separation of powers
To gain public confidence in the alternative judicial mechanism
🔷 Constitutional Position of Tribunals
Article 323A: Tribunals for administrative matters
Article 323B: Tribunals for other matters (e.g., tax, industrial disputes)
However, these articles do not exempt tribunals from the basic structure of the Constitution — especially judicial independence.
🔷 Landmark Cases on Independence of Tribunals
Below are detailed explanations of key Supreme Court decisions that have shaped the law on tribunal independence.
✅ 1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987 AIR 386)
Issue:
Constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which allowed tribunals to substitute High Courts in service matters.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the Act but laid down that tribunals must be substitutes, not inferior alternatives, to High Courts.
Independence must be ensured through:
Security of tenure
Fixed service conditions
Judicial control over appointments
Significance:
Set the groundwork for ensuring independence and competence of tribunals.
Highlighted the necessity of independence if tribunals are to replace constitutional courts.
✅ 2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997 3 SCC 261)
Issue:
Challenged exclusion of High Court jurisdiction over tribunal decisions.
Held:
Struck down clauses in Articles 323A and 323B that excluded High Court and Supreme Court review.
Declared that judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is part of the basic structure.
Emphasized:
Tribunals are supplementary to High Courts.
Their decisions are subject to judicial review.
Significance:
Reinforced tribunal independence by reaffirming judicial supremacy.
Prevented tribunals from becoming executive-controlled adjudicatory bodies.
✅ 3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, Madras Bar Association (2010 11 SCC 1)
Issue:
Constitutionality of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Held:
Upheld creation of NCLT/NCLAT but imposed conditions to ensure independence.
Directed:
Appointments should involve judicial members in selection.
Administrative control should not lie with the executive.
Tribunals must have judges or persons of judicial background.
Significance:
Established guidelines to prevent tribunals from being executive-dominated.
Emphasized judicial primacy in appointments and functioning.
✅ 4. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014 10 SCC 1)
Issue:
Challenged provisions of Companies Act, 2013 relating to constitution and functioning of NCLT and NCLAT.
Held:
Reiterated that tribunal appointments must be made in a way that ensures independence.
Judicial dominance in selection committees was mandated.
Members must have adequate legal experience and tenure protection.
Significance:
Reinforced earlier guidelines and emphasized that executive interference undermines judicial functions.
Upheld constitutional values of judicial independence in the tribunal system.
✅ 5. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019 6 SCC 1)
Issue:
Validity of the Finance Act, 2017, which allowed the central government to control various aspects of tribunals including:
Merging of tribunals
Qualification, appointment, term, and removal of members
Held:
Referred issue to a larger bench but observed:
Tribunal independence cannot be compromised.
Finance Act’s rules gave excessive power to the executive, raising concerns.
Separation of powers and independence are critical.
Significance:
Cast doubt on executive dominance over tribunals.
Recognized the need for institutional safeguards.
✅ 6. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine SC 463)
Issue:
Challenge to Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021, which:
Fixed 4-year term for tribunal members
Gave overwhelming control to the government
Held:
Struck down provisions fixing tenure and appointment process as unconstitutional.
Short tenure violates independence of judiciary.
Government’s dominance in appointments is unconstitutional.
Significance:
Landmark reaffirmation of tribunal independence.
Short tenure and lack of judicial control were ruled violative of basic structure.
🔷 Key Principles Emerged from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Judicial Independence | Tribunals must function independently of the executive |
| Judicial Review | High Court and Supreme Court review must be preserved |
| Judicial Primacy in Appointments | Judges must have a say in the selection and tenure of tribunal members |
| Adequate Tenure and Conditions | Security of tenure and service conditions are necessary to prevent executive pressure |
| Public Confidence | Independence ensures trust in the tribunal system |
🔷 Conclusion
While tribunals serve an important purpose in reducing the burden of courts and providing domain expertise, they must not become tools of executive control. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that their structure and functioning must uphold the principles of judicial independence, separation of powers, and natural justice. Any deviation from these principles would not only compromise justice but also violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments