Relevance: G.S paper II: responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies. Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies.
Question:
How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India. (15)
MODEL ANSWER
Tribunal is an administrative body established for the purpose of discharging quasi-judicial duties. Tribunals relieve the burden of judiciary and provide quick and speedy justice. It is to be noted that tribunals are not courts because courts follow the Courts are governed by strict procedure defined in CrPC, IPC and the Indian Evidence Act whereas tribunals are driven by the principles of natural justice.
The provision for Tribunals was added by the 42nd Constitutional amendment act which added two new articles to the constitution. Under Article 323-A and 323-B.
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under article 323-A was set up in 1985 with the principal bench at Delhi and additional benches in other states, laws under 232-A can be made only by parliament.
- It has original jurisdiction in matters related to recruitment and service of public servants (All India services, central services etc).
- Its members have a status of High Court judges and are appointed by president.
- Appeals against the order of CAT lie before the division of High Court after Supreme Court’s Judgement.
State administrative tribunals
- Central government can establish state administrative tribunals on request of the state according to Administrative tribunals act of 1985
- SAT’s enjoy original jurisdiction in relation to the matters of state government employees.
- Chairman and members are appointed by President in consultation with the governor.
Article 323-B empowers central and the state legislatures to establish tribunals for adjudication of disputes related to following matters
Taxation, Foreign exchange, Imports and Exports Industry and Labour, Land reforms Ceiling on Urban Property, Elections to parliament and state legislature, Food stuffs, Rent and Tenancy Rights.
Tribunalisation is seen as an encroachment towards Ordinary judiciary.
Tribunals have replaced High courts for dispute under the companies Act, Competition Act, SEBI Act, Electricity Act, Consumer protection act, among others, any person aggrieved by an order of an applet tribunal can directly appeal to Supreme Court side stepping high courts.
This raises three Institutional concerns
- These tribunals do not enjoy same constitutional protection as high courts. The appointment process and service condition of high court judges are not under the control of the executive. The enormous institutional investment to protect the independence of high court is dispensed with when it comes to tribunal. Many tribunals still owe allegiance to their parent ministries. Also Tribunals are not accessible as high courts.
- Conferring a direct right of appeal to the supreme court from tribunal has changed the supreme court from being a constitutional court to a mere appellate court.it has become a final clearing house for every appeal under every statute. The supreme court should be a court of last resort deciding cases of the moment and not a final forum with an all-embracing jurisdiction over dispute ranging from a custody battle to the scope of a municipal by- law
ISSUE OF BACKLOG
Backlog of over 58,000 cases in the Supreme Court precludes it from a deliberative court reflecting over critical question of law. It can affect the quality of the court’s jurisprudence. If high courts were to exercise appellate jurisdiction over orders of tribunals, they would act as filters, enabling the Supreme Court to confine itself to those substantiate questions where there is divergence among high court.
- When high courts are side-stepped in favour of tribunal, supreme court judges hearing appeal from tribunals would have to deal with the finer nuances of disputes under specialised area of law for the very first time, which is not ideal. The rationale advanced for avoiding high courts is the colossal backlog.
Impinging on rights
The jurisdiction of high courts is also undermined by the supreme court when it directly entertains writ petition, when the supreme court exercises original jurisdiction it deprives the citizen and the state of the right to challenge potentially erroneous order
Classic example: 2G CASE
More acute problem arises when Supreme Court takes on a legislative role by framing guidelines in the larger public interest
If ordinary courts losses its prominence, India’s justice delivery system will be principle looser.