Tribunalisation of justice in India
Tribunalisation of Justice in India
Tribunalisation of justice refers to the establishment of specialized tribunals to adjudicate specific types of disputes instead of regular courts. This concept emerged to provide speedy, expert, and less formal justice in specialized matters like taxation, administrative disputes, service matters, consumer disputes, etc.
India adopted the system of tribunals mainly because:
Regular courts face a huge backlog of cases.
Technical matters require expert knowledge.
Speedy resolution is essential in certain disputes.
Reducing burden on regular judiciary.
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies that have judicial as well as administrative functions. They are governed by special laws and are meant to provide cheaper and quicker justice.
Constitutional Provisions and Legal Framework
Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution of India provide for the establishment of Administrative and Tribunals.
Various statutes establish tribunals like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Central Administrative Tribunal, National Green Tribunal, etc.
Tribunals are expected to follow principles of natural justice but are generally less formal than courts.
Important Case Laws on Tribunalisation of Justice in India
1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) (1 SCC 388)
Issue: Whether tribunals can have power of judicial review over administrative decisions and whether their decisions can be challenged in High Courts or Supreme Court.
Facts: The case dealt with the power of tribunals and whether the High Courts have supervisory jurisdiction over tribunal decisions.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review vested in High Courts under Article 226 cannot be excluded by tribunals. Tribunal decisions can be challenged before the High Courts.
Significance: This judgment emphasized that tribunals cannot oust the High Courts' power of judicial review. It maintained the basic structure of judicial review under the Constitution, ensuring tribunals do not become a parallel judicial system.
2. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1
Issue: Independence and impartiality of members of tribunals.
Facts: The independence of the chairman of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) was challenged.
Judgment: Supreme Court ruled that the independence of the tribunal is essential for the rule of law and that members of tribunals must be impartial and free from executive interference.
Significance: This case reinforced the principle that tribunals should maintain judicial independence similar to courts, upholding the integrity of the tribunal system.
3. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 1
Issue: Legality of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (proposed reforms in tribunal structure and appointments).
Facts: Petitioners challenged the government’s power to appoint members of tribunals and changes to the system.
Judgment: Supreme Court struck down the legislation creating the National Tribunal Appointments Commission (NTAC), which would have replaced the collegium system of appointments.
Significance: The case reaffirmed the need for judicial independence in tribunal appointments and struck down government attempts to control tribunal appointments, ensuring the autonomy of tribunals.
4. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Issue: Jurisdiction of tribunals versus courts in service matters.
Facts: The case discussed whether industrial tribunals and service tribunals can replace courts for service disputes.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that tribunals can be set up for specialized adjudication in service matters, but their jurisdiction should not be arbitrary and must follow the Constitution.
Significance: This case acknowledged the role of tribunals in service law but emphasized constitutional limits.
5. Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (1963) 1 SCR 332
Issue: The role of tribunals in administrative decisions.
Facts: Concerned the limits of tribunals in administrative matters.
Judgment: Supreme Court emphasized that tribunals must act judicially and follow principles of natural justice.
Significance: The case laid down the groundwork for ensuring tribunals maintain fairness and judicial discipline.
Summary:
Tribunals serve the need for speedy and specialized justice.
Supreme Court has emphasized that tribunals cannot oust the power of judicial review.
Independence and impartiality of tribunal members are crucial.
Tribunals must follow principles of natural justice.
Appointment procedures for tribunals are vital for maintaining their autonomy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments