Tribunal Reforms

Tribunal Reforms
  • Context:  

  • The Supreme Court is currently hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 

  • The challenge, led by the Madras Bar Association (MBA), argues the Act is a direct attempt at legislative overruling of a previous Supreme Court judgment 

  • The dispute centers on provisions, identical to a 2021 ordinance struck down by the SC, which fix the tenure of tribunal members at four years and set a minimum appointment age of 50 years 

  • Evolution of Tribunals in India 

  • The first tribunal, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, was established in 1941 

  • Following the Swaran Singh Committee's recommendation, the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, inserted: 

  • Article 323-A:  

  • This is empowering Parliament to create administrative tribunals for public service matters 

  • Article 323-B:  

  • This is empowering Parliament and State Legislatures to create tribunals for other specific matters like taxation, land reforms, etc. 

  • This led to the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 

  • The Finance Act, 2017, merged several tribunals based on functional similarity. It reduces the total from 26 to 19 

  • Powers and Functions 

  • Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to discharge judicial or quasi-judicial duties.  

  • They stand midway between a Court and an administrative body 

  • The primary objectives for their creation are: 

  • To reduce the caseload and workload of the judiciary 

  • To provide speedy and cost-effective justice 

  • To offer subject expertise for technical matters. 

  • Tribunals are freed from the technical rules of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act but are bound by the principles of natural justice 

  • Constitutionality and Judicial Review 

  • The 42nd Amendment and the 1985 Act originally excluded the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226/227 

  • In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down this exclusion 

  • The Court held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts (Articles 226/227) and the Supreme Court (Article 32) is an integral and essential feature and part of the basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be ousted 

  • The judgment clarified that tribunals will function as supplemental to High Courts and not as substitutes. 

  • Consequently, all decisions of tribunals are subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls.