Tribunals and access
I. What Are Tribunals?
Tribunals are quasi-judicial institutions established to resolve disputes in specialized areas such as tax, service matters, environment, corporate law, etc. They are designed to be faster, more technical, and cost-effective alternatives to the regular court system.
They derive their legitimacy from Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Indian Constitution.
✅ Types of Tribunals
| Constitutional Provision | Tribunal Type | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Article 323-A | Tribunals for public service matters | Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) |
| Article 323-B | Tribunals for other matters (tax, land, etc.) | Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), NCLT, NGT |
II. Objectives of Creating Tribunals
Reduce burden on regular courts
Speedy and efficient justice
Technical expertise in adjudication
Specialized mechanisms for specific types of disputes
III. Challenges Related to Access
Despite their purpose, access to tribunals can be hindered by:
Location of benches (centralized in metros)
Lack of procedural uniformity
Limited legal aid
Delay in appointments
Appeal procedures bypassing High Courts (as initially proposed under Article 323-A and 323-B)
IV. Key Doctrines and Legal Principles
Natural Justice
Right to Access Justice (part of Article 21)
Judicial Independence
Doctrine of Alternative Remedy
Judicial Review (Article 226/227 & 32)
V. Landmark Case Laws on Tribunals and Access
Let’s explore six+ major Supreme Court decisions that shaped the law relating to tribunals and access:
1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) – AIR 1997 SC 1125
Facts: Challenge to exclusion of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 323-A and 323-B for reviewing tribunal decisions.
Held:
Tribunals are subject to judicial review under Articles 226/227 (High Court) and 32 (Supreme Court).
Parliament cannot take away the power of constitutional courts to review tribunal decisions.
Significance:
Strengthened access to justice by preserving citizens' right to approach High Courts.
Made judicial review a basic feature of the Constitution.
2. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) – (2010) 11 SCC 1
Facts: Validity of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Held:
NCLT/NCLAT are valid, but must follow constitutional safeguards:
Independence from executive control
Judicial members must be appointed
Conditions of service must ensure autonomy
Significance:
Emphasized judicial independence in tribunal composition.
Tribunals must maintain structure and function equivalent to courts in spirit.
3. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014) – (2014) 10 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge to the composition and appointment process of NCLT/NCLAT under Companies Act.
Held:
Reiterated that tribunal members must have judicial experience.
Struck down provisions allowing appointment of bureaucrats without legal background.
Significance:
Reinforced the importance of legal expertise in access to fair adjudication.
Prevented executive overreach in judicial appointments.
4. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) – AIR 1987 SC 386
Facts: Constitutional validity of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Held:
Upheld CAT’s validity but required equivalence to High Courts in independence and competence.
Tribunals are acceptable as substitutes for courts, but not inferior substitutes.
Significance:
One of the earliest recognitions that tribunals must be independent and effective for citizens to access justice meaningfully.
5. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019) – (2020) 6 SCC 1
Facts: Challenged the Tribunal Rules, 2017, for violating principles of independence and uniformity.
Held:
The Tribunal Rules were unconstitutional due to excessive executive control over appointments and service conditions.
Recommended setting up a National Tribunal Commission for oversight.
Significance:
Focused on systemic reforms in the tribunal system.
Emphasized the need for institutional independence and user-friendly structure.
6. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) – (2019) 4 SCC 17
Facts: Challenge to provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and functioning of NCLT/NCLAT.
Held:
Upheld the constitutionality of the IBC and the tribunals.
Recognized NCLT as a crucial pillar in economic justice and debt resolution.
Significance:
Tribunals were recognized as essential mechanisms for economic governance.
Underlined the need for effective access to specialized adjudication.
VI. Summary Table: Cases and Principles
| Case | Key Issue | Ruling | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| L. Chandra Kumar (1997) | Judicial review of tribunal decisions | Review by HC/SC must be available | Preserved access to courts |
| R. Gandhi (2010) | Tribunal structure | Must ensure independence | Strengthened tribunal legitimacy |
| Madras Bar Association (2014) | Tribunal appointments | Bureaucrats can't dominate | Upheld legal/judicial standards |
| S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987) | Validity of CAT | Tribunal must match High Court standards | Laid foundation of tribunal system |
| Rojer Mathew (2019) | Tribunal Rules | Struck down rules as unconstitutional | Pushed for tribunal reforms |
| Swiss Ribbons (2019) | NCLT under IBC | Upheld tribunal model | Affirmed tribunals’ role in governance |
VII. Ongoing Challenges to Access
Delays in appointment of tribunal members
Tribunals located only in urban areas
Lack of infrastructure and case management systems
Perceived bias or executive interference
Complex appeal mechanisms confusing for litigants
VIII. Conclusion
Tribunals have evolved as integral components of the Indian justice delivery system, aimed at expediting specialized disputes. However, their legitimacy and effectiveness rest on:
Access to justice for all,
Institutional independence,
Transparency in appointments, and
Procedural fairness.
Through its judgments, the Supreme Court has consistently shaped the administrative law principles governing tribunals, ensuring they function as effective substitutes, not substandard alternatives, to regular courts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments