S
Sahaj Vidhi
Law Optional 2017 Paper I

Explain the phenomenon of tribunalisation of justice in India.

Verified Answer

  1. Core Legal Answer & Context: 'Tribunalisation of justice' refers to the increasing trend of establishing specialized quasi-judicial bodies, known as tribunals, to adjudicate specific types of disputes, thereby reducing the burden on traditional courts. This phenomenon gained momentum in India primarily to address the burgeoning backlog of cases in civil courts, provide specialized expertise for complex matters (e.g., tax, environmental, administrative), and offer a more expeditious and cost-effective dispute resolution mechanism. Tribunals operate under specific statutes, often with simplified procedures, and are intended to deliver justice efficiently in their designated domains.

  2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

  • Article 323A of the Constitution: Empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
  • Article 323B of the Constitution: Empowers Parliament and State Legislatures to provide for the adjudication or trial by tribunals of disputes, complaints, or offences with respect to matters specified therein, such as taxation, foreign exchange, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms, elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, etc.
  • Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Established Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SAT) for service matters.
  • Companies Act, 2013: Established the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
  • National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: Established the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for environmental matters.
  1. Important Landmark Cases:
  • S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, recognizing the need for specialized bodies to deal with service matters. However, it emphasized that tribunals must function effectively and ensure access to justice.
  • L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): This landmark judgment significantly redefined the scope of tribunalisation. The Supreme Court held that Articles 323A and 323B could not exclude the power of judicial review of the High Courts (under Articles 226/227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32) over the decisions of tribunals. It mandated that decisions of tribunals would be subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the respective High Court, thereby re-establishing the supervisory role of the High Courts.
  1. Clear Conclusion: Tribunalisation in India is a significant development aimed at streamlining justice delivery and providing specialized adjudication. While it offers advantages like expertise, speed, and cost-effectiveness, the L. Chandra Kumar judgment ensured that tribunals remain subordinate to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, preserving the fundamental principle of judicial review. This balance ensures that while tribunals contribute to efficient justice, the constitutional scheme of judicial oversight and protection of fundamental rights is not undermined. The phenomenon continues to evolve, with ongoing debates about the structure, independence, and efficiency of tribunals.