Tribunalisation of Justice in India

The legal framework of India is designed to ensure justice for all, and as part of this endeavour, courts play a pivotal role in adjudicating disputes. However, with increasing litigation and delays in justice delivery, the need for alternative methods of dispute resolution has grown significantly. One of the most notable developments in this area is the tribunalisation of justice. Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to handle specific types of disputes and reduce the burden on traditional courts.

Tribunalisation refers to the creation of tribunals as an alternative to conventional court systems. These bodies aim to expedite dispute resolution, especially in areas where technical or specialised knowledge is necessary, such as taxation, administrative matters, and environmental concerns. Over time, tribunals have become a significant part of India’s judicial landscape. This article explores the need, evolution, functioning, and challenges associated with tribunalisation in India, as well as the implications it has on the judicial system.

Need for Tribunals in India

Tribunals were established to provide a faster, less formal, and more specialised mechanism for resolving disputes, as the Indian courts were becoming overburdened with a massive backlog of cases. According to estimates, as of 2021, around 4.5 crore cases were pending in various courts across India. The primary reasons for this pendency include an inadequate number of judges, procedural delays, and the complexity of cases. As a result, the justice delivery system was failing to keep pace with the demands of litigants.

Tribunals address this issue by:

1. Reducing the workload of courts: By dealing with specific types of cases, tribunals reduce the pressure on conventional courts, particularly the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
2. Providing specialised knowledge: Tribunals are often manned by experts in their respective fields, enabling them to make informed decisions that require technical understanding, such as taxation, environmental law, or intellectual property.
3. Speeding up the process: Unlike courts that follow a strict procedural code, tribunals are allowed more flexibility in their procedures, which can lead to faster dispute resolution.
4. Lower costs: As tribunals have simpler and faster procedures, they tend to be less expensive for litigants compared to traditional court systems.

Evolution of Tribunalisation in India

The concept of tribunals was formally introduced into the Indian legal system with the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which added Articles 323A and 323B to the Constitution of India. These articles empowered the Parliament to create tribunals for administrative and other disputes.

Article 323A

• Article 323A enables the establishment of administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes related to recruitment and service conditions of public servants.
• The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was established under this provision in 1985. The CAT deals with disputes related to civil services at the central level, whereas State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) deal with similar disputes at the state level.

Article 323B

• This article permits the creation of tribunals for a wider range of disputes, including taxation, labour, land reforms, elections, and rent control.
• This provision has enabled the creation of specialised tribunals such as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

Landmark Judgements Shaping Tribunalisation

The judiciary has played a significant role in shaping the functioning and scope of tribunals in India. Several landmark cases have helped clarify the constitutional status of tribunals and their relationship with traditional courts.

S.P. Sampath Kumar vs Union of India (1987)

In this case, the constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was challenged. The Supreme Court held that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, but tribunals could be vested with powers of judicial review as long as they provided an effective mechanism for the same. This judgement supported the establishment of administrative tribunals but emphasised the need for an effective judicial review process.

L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India (1997)

L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India was a turning point in the functioning of tribunals. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 cannot be excluded. The court also stated that tribunals will function as courts of first instance, but their decisions could be reviewed by the High Courts. The judgement ensured that tribunals cannot replace the High Courts and that their decisions are subject to review.

Union of India vs R. Gandhi (2010)

This case addressed the issue of the eligibility criteria for appointment to tribunals. The court held that tribunals performing judicial functions must be composed of members with judicial experience or expertise, similar to that of a High Court judge. This judgement reinforced the importance of maintaining judicial independence and quality of decision-making in tribunals.

Types of Tribunals in India

Tribunals in India can broadly be classified into two categories:

1. Administrative Tribunals: These tribunals handle disputes related to public service and administrative matters.
2. Quasi-Judicial Tribunals: These tribunals deal with specific types of disputes, often requiring technical or specialised knowledge.

Notable Administrative Tribunals

1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

• Established in 1985, CAT deals with service-related disputes of central government employees. It has benches across India and functions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
• CAT’s decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts as per the L. Chandra Kumar judgement.

2. State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)

• SATs handle service disputes of state government employees. States can establish their own administrative tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Notable Quasi-Judicial Tribunals

1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)

• The ITAT is a specialised tribunal dealing with disputes related to income tax. It was established in 1941 and is considered one of the oldest tribunals in India.
• It functions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its decisions can be appealed before the High Courts.

2. National Green Tribunal (NGT)

• The NGT was established in 2010 to handle disputes related to environmental protection and conservation of forests. It is a highly specialised tribunal composed of experts in environmental law and policy.
• It plays a critical role in addressing environmental concerns swiftly, as environmental litigation in regular courts often leads to significant delays.

3. Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)

• Established under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the AFT adjudicates disputes related to the service conditions of armed forces personnel.
• It functions as a quasi-judicial body and provides a faster mechanism for resolving service-related issues.

Advantages of Tribunalisation

1. Speedy Resolution of Disputes

One of the primary objectives of establishing tribunals is to expedite the resolution of disputes. Tribunals typically follow simpler procedures than regular courts, which allows them to resolve cases more quickly. This is particularly beneficial in cases where time is of the essence, such as in environmental or taxation disputes.

2. Specialisation

Tribunals often require technical or specialised knowledge, which regular courts may lack. By appointing experts in specific fields, tribunals are able to make informed decisions on complex matters. For instance, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is composed of members with expertise in corporate law, making it well-suited to handle matters related to corporate disputes, insolvency, and bankruptcy.

3. Reduced Burden on Courts

By diverting specific types of cases to tribunals, the regular judiciary, particularly the High Courts and the Supreme Court, can focus on constitutional matters, criminal cases, and other critical issues. This reduces the overall burden on the traditional courts, helping them function more efficiently.

4. Accessibility

Tribunals are often designed to be more accessible to litigants. They have benches in different regions, making it easier for individuals to seek justice without travelling long distances to the nearest High Court or Supreme Court. This makes the justice delivery system more inclusive and less daunting for the common person.

5. Cost-Effective

Tribunals tend to be less formal than courts and typically have simpler procedures, making litigation less expensive. The reduced legal formalities help save time and money for both litigants and the tribunal.

Challenges and Issues with Tribunalisation

Despite the advantages, tribunalisation in India faces several challenges that need to be addressed to make tribunals more effective.

1. Inadequate Infrastructure

Many tribunals face significant issues related to infrastructure, such as a lack of proper facilities, inadequate staffing, and outdated technology. These issues result in delays, making the purpose of speedy justice redundant. Tribunals must be adequately funded and provided with the necessary resources to function efficiently.

2. Executive Influence

One of the most significant criticisms of tribunals is the extent of executive control over their functioning. Many tribunals are administered by government ministries, and the appointment of tribunal members is often done by the executive branch. This raises concerns about the independence of tribunals and their ability to deliver impartial justice.

3. Lack of Judicial Independence

Tribunals are often criticised for their lack of judicial independence. Since many tribunal members are appointed by the executive, there is a potential for bias or influence. In contrast, regular courts enjoy greater independence, as judges are appointed through a more transparent and rigorous process.

4. Pendency of Cases

Although tribunals were created to reduce the backlog of cases in regular courts, many tribunals themselves have become burdened with large backlogs. The Law Commission of India, in its 272nd report, highlighted the pendency in tribunals and recommended measures to improve their functioning.

5. Overlapping Jurisdiction

Another challenge faced by tribunals is the overlapping jurisdiction with regular courts. This often leads to confusion about where a particular case should be filed. Additionally, the lack of a clear hierarchy in the tribunal system can result in inconsistencies in decision-making.

6. Lack of Uniformity

With the growing number of tribunals, there is a lack of uniformity in their functioning. Different tribunals follow different rules and procedures, leading to inconsistencies in the delivery of justice. A standardised code of procedure for tribunals could help address this issue.

7. Appeals and Judicial Review

Although tribunals are intended to be final authorities in their respective areas of jurisdiction, their decisions are often subject to review by the High Courts and the Supreme Court. This defeats the purpose of creating tribunals to expedite justice, as it often leads to protracted litigation. The L. Chandra Kumar judgement mandated that all tribunal decisions must be subject to judicial review by High Courts, further complicating matters.

8. Limited Geographical Reach

Despite the objective of providing accessible justice, many tribunals have limited geographical reach, with only a few benches across the country. This makes it difficult for litigants from remote or rural areas to approach tribunals, leading to a disparity in access to justice.

Conclusion

Tribunalisation of justice in India has played a crucial role in reducing the burden on conventional courts and expediting the resolution of disputes in specialised areas. However, the system is not without its challenges. Issues such as executive interference, lack of judicial independence, inadequate infrastructure, and procedural inconsistencies need to be addressed to make tribunals more effective.

As the Indian judiciary continues to evolve, tribunals will likely play an even more significant role in the administration of justice. However, for tribunalisation to fulfil its potential, the system must be reformed to ensure independence, efficiency, and accessibility. By addressing the shortcomings of the current system, tribunals can become a vital tool for delivering speedy and specialised justice in India.