The Supreme Court has emphasized the need to strengthen tribunals to maintain public confidence in their functioning. While hearing a case challenging the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the Court highlighted concerns regarding service conditions, tenure, and vacancies in tribunals, urging for reforms to enhance their efficiency.
Supreme Court’s Stand On Tribunals
- Need for Strengthening: The Supreme Court stressed the importance of reinforcing tribunals to ensure litigants trust their decisions.
- Call for Reforms: The bench highlighted various structural issues affecting tribunals, including service conditions, judicial appointments, and vacant positions.
- Recruitment Process: Judicial members of central tribunals are appointed by a committee led by a Supreme Court judge. However, service conditions, tenure, and recruitment of support staff fall under the central government’s jurisdiction.
Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021
- Objective: The Act aims to streamline tribunal functions by dissolving specific appellate tribunals and transferring their jurisdiction to High Courts and other judicial bodies.
- Background: It was introduced following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (2021), which struck down certain provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021.
- Key Provision: The Act abolishes several appellate tribunals, shifting their responsibilities to established judicial bodies.
Understanding Tribunals
- Definition: Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies created to resolve disputes in specific areas.
- Constitutional Backing: The 42nd Amendment (1976) introduced Part XIV-A, incorporating Articles 323-A and 323-B.
- Article 323-A: Empowers Parliament to set up administrative tribunals for public service matters.
- Article 323-B: Enables the creation of tribunals for areas such as taxation, land reforms, labor disputes, and elections.
Distinction Between Courts and Tribunals
| Feature | Courts of Law | Tribunals |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Derives judicial authority from the state | Created by statutes and act as quasi-judicial bodies |
| Scope | Can try all civil and criminal cases | Handles only specific disputes as defined by law |
| Independence | Judges are independent of the executive | Tenure and conditions are determined by the executive |
| Legal Training | Judges are legally trained professionals | Members may or may not be legally trained |
| Decision Basis | Follows strict legal procedures and evidence rules | May follow principles of natural justice rather than strict rules |
| Power Over Legislation | Can review the constitutionality of laws | Cannot examine the validity of laws |
Challenges Faced By Tribunals
- Judicial Independence: The Supreme Court has raised concerns about excessive executive influence in tribunal appointments and the dilution of judicial independence by technical members.
- Case Backlogs: Many tribunals face high pendency rates. For example, as of 2021, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal had 7,312 pending cases, while the Armed Forces Tribunal had 18,829 cases.
- Infrastructure Deficiency: Insufficient human resources, unfilled vacancies, and poor service conditions hinder their efficiency.
- Jurisdictional Overlaps: There are frequent conflicts between tribunals and regular courts, leading to confusion in case adjudication.