Governance, TLP-UPSC Mains Answer Writing
Q. 5. Tribunalization of justice was introduced to ensure specialized and speedy resolution of disputes. Critically examine the role of tribunals in India, the key challenges they face today, and suggest reforms to enhance their effectiveness. (250 words, 15marks)
Introduction
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to deliver specialized and swift justice. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment introduced Articles 323A and 323B, enabling their creation. However, issues of independence, pendency, and executive dominance raise concerns about their effectiveness and constitutional integrity.
Body
Constitutional Basis
- Article 323A: Empowers Parliament to set up administrative tribunals for public service matters.
- Article 323B: Enables Parliament and state legislatures to create tribunals for subjects like taxation, land reforms, etc.
Objectives Behind Tribunalization
- Specialized Adjudication: Brings domain expertise to resolve technical disputes.
- Speedy Justice: Aims to reduce pendency in traditional courts.
- Reduced Court Burden: Eases workload on judiciary, especially High Courts.
- Accessible Redressal: Ensures regionally dispersed benches for public reach.
- Efficient Service Resolution: CAT and SATs expedite government service-related cases.
Successes and Contributions
- Domain Expertise: Tribunals like NGT and AFT have addressed complex environmental and service disputes effectively.
- Reduced Delay in Specific Areas: CAT and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) have significantly helped reduce delays in service and tax matters.
- Geographical Access: Benches across states enhance outreach for litigants.
- Faster Redressal in Policy Areas: Environmental and telecom disputes have seen faster outcomes compared to regular courts.
- Judicial Endorsement: In Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), SC upheld tribunal constitutionality but mandated judicial review via High Courts.
Key Challenges in Tribunal System
- Lack of Independence: Executive-heavy selection panels undermine neutrality; SC flagged this in 2019.
- Pendency and Vacancies: Armed Forces Tribunal had 18,829 pending cases in 2021 due to delayed appointments.
- Short Tenures: Brief terms and reappointment options increase executive influence.
- Inconsistent Procedures: Wide procedural variations cause legal confusion
- Overlapping Jurisdictions: Unclear division between courts and tribunals delays justice.
- Technical Members’ Competence: Some lack legal background or training.
Recent Developments
Supreme Court Ruling (2024): Tribunals like Armed Forces Tribunal cannot direct the government to frame policy; policymaking lies with the executive.
Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021: Merged tribunals, standardized tenure and qualifications; criticized for executive dominance.
Reform Suggestions
- Strengthen Independence: Ensure judicial dominance in appointment panels – Law Commission’s 272nd Report and SC’s Madras Bar Association judgment support this.
- Timely Appointments: Expedite appointments to prevent case backlog – SK Pattnaik Committee (2017) had recommended streamlining the process.
- Unified Procedure Code: Harmonize tribunal procedures to eliminate inconsistency and confusion.
- Infrastructure and Accessibility: Expand regional benches and invest in digital platforms for better access.
- Create National Tribunals Commission (NTC): Oversee recruitment, functioning, and administration for greater uniformity.
- Improve Technical Competence: Ensure that technical members have legal understanding or receive necessary training.
Conclusion
Access to justice is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as upheld by the Supreme Court. Tribunals, if properly empowered and insulated from executive control, can serve as vital instruments to uphold this principle through speed, expertise, and inclusivity.
