Tribunals in India
✅ What Are Tribunals in India?
Tribunals are quasi-judicial institutions established to adjudicate disputes in specific areas such as taxation, administrative matters, environmental issues, company law, etc. They are not courts, but they perform similar functions — that is, dispute resolution.
✅ Constitutional Basis of Tribunals
Tribunals in India are primarily governed by:
Article 323A: Administrative Tribunals (e.g., CAT)
Article 323B: Tribunals for other matters (e.g., Tax, Industrial, etc.)
These were added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
✅ Why Tribunals?
To reduce the burden on regular courts.
To provide specialized expertise in technical or complex matters.
To offer speedier justice in specific sectors.
✅ Types of Tribunals in India
Administrative Tribunals (e.g., Central Administrative Tribunal - CAT)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
National Green Tribunal (NGT)
Armed Forces Tribunal
Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)
Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT)
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws on Tribunals in India
✅ 1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 386
Facts:
This case challenged the constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which allowed tribunals to replace High Courts in service matters under Article 323A.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the Act but emphasized that tribunals must act as effective substitutes for High Courts. The Court laid down the ‘efficacy test’, which means that tribunals must offer equally effective judicial remedies as courts.
Significance:
Established that tribunals must not dilute the quality or independence of justice delivery. Judicial independence and fair process are essential.
✅ 2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 1125
Facts:
Challenged the exclusion of judicial review by High Courts over tribunal decisions under Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d).
Judgment:
A Constitution Bench held that:
Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 (High Courts) and Article 32 (Supreme Court) is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Therefore, tribunal decisions are subject to scrutiny by High Courts.
Significance:
Struck down parts of Articles 323A and 323B as unconstitutional to the extent that they excluded judicial review. This reaffirmed the supremacy of constitutional courts.
✅ 3. Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010)
Citation: (2010) 11 SCC 1
Facts:
Concerned the Constitutionality of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under the Companies Act, 1956.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of NCLT/NCLAT but struck down certain provisions regarding the appointment of members, as they compromised the independence of the judiciary.
Key Guidelines:
Majority of the members must be judicial members.
Selection committee should include judicial members like the Chief Justice of India or his nominee.
Significance:
Reinforced that tribunals must maintain independence and cannot be completely controlled by the executive.
✅ 4. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2020)
Citation: (2021) 7 SCC 369
Facts:
Challenged the Tribunal Rules, 2020, especially provisions related to the appointment and tenure of tribunal members.
Judgment:
Declared parts of the 2020 Rules unconstitutional, especially the provision that gave the government more power in appointments.
Held that tenure must be at least five years, and the selection committee must be balanced with judicial representation.
Significance:
Protected tribunals from executive dominance and reiterated that tribunal independence is essential to maintain the rule of law.
✅ 5. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019)
Citation: (2020) 6 SCC 1
Facts:
Challenged the Finance Act, 2017, which made structural changes to tribunals and allowed the executive to control rules regarding appointments and service conditions.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the Finance Act could not be used to amend tribunal-related provisions via Money Bill.
Referred the issue to a larger bench to decide the legality of using the Money Bill route.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of separation of powers and warned against executive overreach in tribunal matters.
✅ 6. State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association (2012)
Citation: (2012) 10 SCC 353
Facts:
Challenge to the appointment of non-judicial members (IAS officers) as heads of revenue tribunals.
Judgment:
Held that the presiding officer must be a judicial member with experience and legal training.
Significance:
Tribunals dealing with legal matters must be headed by legally qualified persons to ensure due process and fair adjudication.
🔍 Summary of Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Established By |
|---|---|
| Judicial review is part of the basic structure | L. Chandra Kumar (1997) |
| Tribunals must be effective substitutes to courts | S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987) |
| Independence of tribunals is essential | Madras Bar Association (2010, 2020) |
| Executive should not dominate appointment process | Rojer Mathew (2019) |
| Head of tribunal must be a judicial person | Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Case (2012) |
✅ Conclusion
Tribunals in India play a crucial role in providing specialized and speedy justice. However, their structure and functioning must adhere to constitutional principles, especially:
Judicial independence
Separation of powers
Right to judicial review
Fairness in appointments and tenure
The judiciary has repeatedly stepped in to ensure that tribunals do not become executive-controlled bodies, and their decisions remain subject to constitutional checks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments