Role of tribunals in Indian administrative justice
⚖️ Role of Tribunals in Indian Administrative Justice System
🔹 Introduction
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies created to deal with disputes and grievances, especially where technical or specialized knowledge is required. In India, tribunals form a vital part of the administrative justice system, offering a speedy, cost-effective, and expert-driven alternative to regular courts.
Tribunals serve as a bridge between the administration and judiciary, ensuring that administrative decisions are subject to legal scrutiny while reducing the burden on conventional courts.
🔹 Constitutional and Legal Basis
Article 323-A: Provides for administrative tribunals for service-related matters of public servants.
Article 323-B: Allows for tribunals in other fields like taxation, land reforms, industrial disputes, etc.
Finance Act, 2017: Restructured tribunal system by merging many tribunals and streamlining appointments.
Tribunals are established by statutes, e.g.:
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
National Green Tribunal (NGT) – under the NGT Act, 2010
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)
Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)
🧭 Key Roles and Functions of Tribunals
| Function | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Specialized Adjudication | Tribunals deal with niche areas requiring expertise (e.g., tax, environment, services). |
| Quicker Resolution | Less formal, faster processes than regular courts. |
| Accessibility | Procedures are simplified and more accessible to laypersons. |
| Relieve Court Burden | Offloads cases from overburdened High Courts and Supreme Court. |
| Checks Administrative Power | Tribunals review administrative decisions to ensure fairness and legality. |
| Quasi-Judicial Authority | Tribunals follow principles of natural justice and have powers similar to civil courts. |
🏛️ Detailed Case Law (More than 5 Cases)
1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)
Facts: Challenged the constitutionality of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which excluded High Court jurisdiction over service matters.
Held: Supreme Court upheld the Act but ruled that tribunals must be effective substitutes for High Courts.
Significance: Recognized tribunals as an integral part of the justice delivery system, but emphasized that they must function independently and effectively.
2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts: Challenged the exclusion of judicial review under Articles 226/227 and 32 due to the creation of tribunals under Articles 323-A and 323-B.
Held: Supreme Court held that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure and cannot be ousted.
Significance:
Tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts.
Tribunals are first-tier and not substitutes for constitutional courts.
Landmark judgment reinforcing constitutional supremacy.
3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010)
Facts: Concerned the constitutional validity of the Company Law Tribunal (CLT) and Appellate Tribunal (CLAT).
Held: Tribunal system is valid but must maintain independence from the executive.
Significance: Set guidelines for appointment, qualification, and independence of tribunal members.
Impact: Reinforced separation of powers and tribunal autonomy.
4. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014)
Facts: Challenged provisions of the Companies Act regarding tribunal constitution and functioning.
Held: Struck down provisions that gave excessive control to the executive over selection and tenure of tribunal members.
Significance: Emphasized judicial character of tribunals and need for independence.
5. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019)
Facts: Challenge to the constitutionality of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Held: NCLT and NCLAT are valid tribunals under the Constitution.
Significance: Reiterated that tribunals must be manned by people of judicial competence and must function like courts in terms of fairness.
6. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019)
Facts: Challenged rules framed under the Finance Act, 2017 that impacted the functioning and independence of tribunals.
Held: Supreme Court struck down parts of the Tribunal Rules and referred larger constitutional questions to a larger bench.
Significance: Stressed the need for judicial independence in tribunal appointments and separation of powers.
7. State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association (2012)
Facts: Tribunal was functioning without a judicial member.
Held: The court held that quasi-judicial tribunals must have at least one judicial member.
Significance: Ensures legal fairness and avoids purely executive decision-making.
🔍 Advantages of Tribunals in Administrative Justice
Efficiency: Faster disposal than regular courts.
Specialization: Domain expertise improves quality of decisions.
Affordability: Less expensive procedures.
Simplified Process: Less formal and more accessible.
Relief to Judiciary: Helps manage backlog in regular courts.
⚠️ Challenges and Criticisms
| Challenge | Description |
|---|---|
| Executive Interference | Appointment process often lacks independence. |
| Lack of Uniformity | Inconsistent rules and structures across tribunals. |
| Undermining Judiciary | Tribunals cannot replace High Courts or Supreme Court. |
| Access Issues | Some tribunals are not easily accessible (location, language, etc.). |
| Delays | Despite faster procedure, many tribunals face backlog. |
⚖️ Judicial View on Tribunal Independence
Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that tribunals must have judicial independence.
Tribunals exercising judicial functions must be free from executive control.
They are not extensions of the executive but part of the justice system.
📚 Role of Tribunals in Specific Areas
| Tribunal | Role |
|---|---|
| CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal) | Adjudicates service disputes of government employees. |
| NGT (National Green Tribunal) | Handles environmental cases; enforces environmental laws. |
| NCLT/NCLAT | Deals with corporate disputes, insolvency, mergers. |
| ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) | Hears appeals related to income tax. |
| AFT (Armed Forces Tribunal) | Handles service disputes in armed forces. |
| TDSAT | Regulates telecom disputes between service providers and consumers. |
🧾 Conclusion
Tribunals play an essential role in India's administrative justice system by offering specialized, efficient, and accessible forums for dispute resolution. While they provide much-needed relief to overburdened courts, their success depends on judicial independence, structural integrity, and constitutional compliance.
The judiciary, through landmark judgments, has ensured that tribunals remain accountable, fair, and consistent with constitutional values, especially access to justice, rule of law, and separation of powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments