Difference Between Tribunals and Courts

Tribunals and courts are two essential components of the legal system, each playing a distinct role in the administration of justice. Tribunals and courts differ in structure, function and jurisdiction. But, both entities contribute to resolving disputes and ensuring the rule of law.

What are Tribunals?

Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies that serve as intermediaries between courts and executive bodies. They perform quasi-judicial functions and help alleviate the burden on courts while expediting justice delivery.

The term “tribunal” derives from the word “tribunes,” which refers to the magistrates of the Classical Roman Republic. These bodies were established to handle various functions, such as resolving disputes, determining rights between contesting parties, making administrative decisions, and reviewing existing ones.

The incorporation of tribunals into the Indian legal system can be traced back to the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976. The Amendment introduced the term “tribunal” into the Constitution through Articles 323A and 323B. However, the first tribunal established in India was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in 1941.

Article 323A empowers the Parliament to establish tribunals for adjudicating or trying disputes and complaints related to recruitment and conditions of service of individuals appointed to public services and posts. It covers matters concerning the Union, states, local authorities, government-controlled entities and corporations owned or controlled by the government.

Article 323B grants authority to the Parliament and State Legislatures to establish tribunals for adjudicating disputes, complaints or offences related to matters specified in Clause (2) of the article. Clause (1) includes matters such as tax assessment and collection, foreign exchange, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms, urban property ceiling, elections, food production and distribution, rent regulation, offences related to the listed matters and more.

The difference between Articles 323A and 323B is that Article 323A grants power solely to the Parliament, while Article 323B also extends power to State Legislatures. The former pertains solely to public services, while the latter covers a broader range of matters outlined in Clause (2).

Since introducing these articles, the respective legislatures have established numerous tribunals to handle specific matters. Establishing tribunals has proven beneficial as it enhances the efficiency of the justice delivery system and is often more cost effective than traditional courts.

The Franks Report of 1957 identified several advantages of establishing Tribunals. These advantages include cost-effectiveness, accessibility, freedom from technicality, expedition and expertise in their subject matter.

In India, there are currently various Tribunals that have been established to address specific issues. Some examples of these Tribunals are as follows:

• National Green Tribunal: This Tribunal was set up under the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010. NGT’s primary role is on matters related to environmental protection.
• Water Disputes Tribunal: The Water Disputes Tribunal operates under the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act of 1956. It specifically deals with disputes concerning inter-state river water.
• Administrative Tribunals: These are established under the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985. They handle matters relating to public services as Article 323A of the Constitution outlines.
• Armed Forces Tribunal: The Armed Forces Tribunal was established under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. It deals with issues concerning the armed forces.

These are just a few examples of the Tribunals established in India, each with specialised jurisdiction and purpose. These Tribunals provide an alternative forum for resolving specific disputes and contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system.

What are Courts?

Courts are legal institutions established by the government to resolve disputes and administer justice. They serve as impartial bodies that interpret and apply the law to resolve conflicts between individuals, organisations, or the state. Courts play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring fair and equitable outcomes.

The judiciary in India is organised into three tiers, with the courts being part of the third branch of government. The highest level is the Supreme Court, also known as the Apex Court, which operates at the central level. Below the Supreme Court are the High Courts, established at the state level. Each state in India generally has its own High Court, and there are currently 25 High Courts. At the lowest level of the hierarchy are the district courts, also called lower courts.

Here is a description of the various types of courts:

• Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body and holds a court of record status. Its decisions are binding on all other courts in the country. The Supreme Court hears appeals from the High Courts and certain tribunals in civil and criminal cases. It also safeguards and upholds the fundamental rights of citizens.
• High Court: The High Court is the principal judiciary at the state level. It has jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters and exercises general and special powers. The High Court also has supervisory authority over the subordinate courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction.
• Subordinate Courts: Various civil and criminal courts, both original and appellate, operate within their respective jurisdictions. These courts perform similar functions throughout the country, although minor variations may be based on local laws and regulations.

Each court has different jurisdictions and powers. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction as provided by Article 131 of the Constitution and can also entertain writs under Article 32. The High Courts have appellate jurisdiction and can issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. District Courts are categorised based on jurisdiction, such as session courts for criminal matters.

A court can be described as a legal institution established by the government to resolve disputes between parties through a formal legal process. Its purpose is to ensure justice in civil, criminal and regulatory matters by the law.

Difference Between Courts and Tribunals

The differences between tribunals and courts are:

The Basic Idea of Tribunals and Courts

India has a hierarchical court system comprising district courts, session courts, lok adalats, consumer courts or forums, high courts and the Supreme Court. However, the large number of pending cases, including those spanning several years, necessitates the establishment of specialised tribunals for efficient and systematic administration. These tribunals address departmental disputes and are specific to each government department within a state.

The Difference in Meaning

Courts are judicial bodies with a rich historical tradition, operating in a broad sense. They maintain traditional functions, while tribunals are statutory agencies vested with judicial powers. While all courts are tribunals, not all tribunals are courts. The establishment of tribunals was primarily aimed at relieving the burden on courts.

Difference in Nature

Like courts, tribunals have a permanent establishment and a panel of adjudicators responsible for delivering fair decisions to the aggrieved parties. However, tribunal proceedings are less formal and more reasonable compared to courts. Rules and codes of conduct bind courts, and higher courts scrutinise their conduct. In contrast, tribunals have more flexibility and informality. Adjudicators in tribunals are often selected from the respective department or organisation. The central Administrative Tribunal, established under Article 323A of the Constitution of India, adjudicates disputes and complaints related to recruitment and conditions of service in public services and posts.

Differences in Powers and Functions

Courts exercise solely judicial functions and can decide the validity of legislation. They do not typically perform investigative functions but base their decisions on evidence presented before the court. Court decisions are objective, primarily relying on evidence and materials. Courts are presided over by officers who are law experts.

On the other hand, tribunals perform various administrative functions in addition to their quasi-judicial functions. They do not have the power to decide the validity of legislation. Many tribunals also conduct investigations alongside their quasi-judicial functions. Decisions made by tribunals can be subjective, taking into account policy and expediency. It is optional for members of tribunals to be trained legal experts.

Difference in Fees

Court fees are determined based on the subject matter of the case, which can be costly, especially for cases involving significant sums of money. In contrast, tribunal fees are comparatively less expensive and contribute to the expeditious resolution of disputes.

Difference Between Tribunals and Courts in Technicality

In courts, judges listen to both parties and use their expertise to resolve disputes based on facts, details and evidence. In tribunals, the adjudicators possess expertise in their relevant field. For example, a customs tribunal comprises a customs officer with specific knowledge related to their department, which is more specialised than judges in courts. Tribunals, therefore, decentralise the power of the judiciary.

Difference Between Tribunals and Courts in Jurisdiction

Tribunals have a broader jurisdiction, limited to departmental issues within a specific area. Their jurisdiction is focused on matters directly related to a particular department. On the other hand, courts have jurisdiction over various areas, including civil, criminal, family, corporate and business disputes, encompassing a wider scope.

Here is a table summarising the key differences between courts and tribunals:

Conclusion

Tribunals and courts serve distinct roles within the legal system. Tribunals are statutory agencies endowed with judicial powers. They were established to alleviate the burden on courts and resolve departmental disputes more reasonably. Tribunals operate with less formality, allowing for more flexible and speedy proceedings. Adjudicators in tribunals possess specific departmental expertise, enabling them to make informed decisions within their respective fields. While tribunals may have limited jurisdiction, they often perform additional administrative functions beyond their quasi-judicial duties.

On the other hand, courts are traditional judicial bodies with a long-standing history, primarily focused on resolving disputes across various areas, including civil, criminal, family, corporate and business matters. They follow formal and rigid procedures, making decisions based on evidence and expert legal knowledge. Courts have the authority to determine the validity of legislation and operate with broad jurisdiction.

Both tribunals and courts play crucial roles in the legal system, ensuring justice is served and disputes are resolved. While tribunals offer a specialised and efficient alternative for resolving departmental issues, courts maintain a broader scope and have a more traditional structure. The coexistence of tribunals and courts allows for a balanced legal framework that caters to the diverse needs of society and promotes the effective administration of justice.