GS Paper II

News Excerpt:

The Supreme Court has clarified that tribunals functioning under the strict parameters of their governing legislations cannot direct the government to make policy.

About:

The SC was dealing with a question on whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) could have directed the government to make a policy to fill up the post of the Judge Advocate General (Air).

Reasons given by SC:

• The AFT was vested with the powers of a civil court. It did not have the powers of the Supreme Court or the High Courts.
• Even the High Courts cannot, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, direct the government or a department to formulate a particular policy.
• The creation or sanction of a scheme or policy regarding the service of defence personnel or their regularisation was the “sole prerogative of the government”.
• Making policy is not in the domain of the judiciary. The Tribunal is also a quasi-judicial body, functioning within the parameters set out in the governing legislation.
• It cannot direct those responsible for making policy, to make a policy in a particular manner.

Distinction between Courts and Tribunals:

Tribunal System:

• The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution introduced Part XIV-A which included Article 323A and 323B,  empowering Parliament for the constitution of tribunals.
• Article 323A: Administrative tribunals (both at central and state level) for adjudication of matters related to recruitment and conditions of service of public servants, and
• Article 323B: Other tribunals for adjudication of certain subject matters including industrial disputes, taxation (such as levy and collection of taxes), and foreign exchange.
• Tribunals are institutions established for discharging judicial or quasi-judicial duties. 
• The Supreme Court has ruled that tribunals, being quasi-judicial bodies, should have the same level of independence from the executive as the judiciary. 
• In order to ensure that tribunals are independent from the executive, the Supreme Court had recommended that all administrative matters be managed by the Law ministry rather than the ministry associated with the subject area. 

Key developments in Indian tribunal system:

• 1941: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was established as the first Tribunal in India.
• 1969: The First Administrative Reforms Commission recommended that the central government should set up Civil Services Tribunals at the national level and state levels.
• 1974: The Sixth Law Commission (1974), recommended setting up a separate high-powered tribunal and commission for adjudication of matters in High Courts.
• 1976: The Swaran Singh Committee (1976) recommended setting up:
• (i) administrative tribunals (both at national level and state level) to adjudicate on matters related to service conditions,
• (ii) an all-India Appellate Tribunal for matters from labour courts and industrial tribunals, and
• (iii) tribunals for deciding matters related to various sectors (such as revenue, land reforms, and essential commodities).
• 2017: The Finance Act, 2017 reorganised the tribunal system by merging tribunals based on functional similarity. The number of Tribunals was reduced from 26 to 19.
• 2021: The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021 was introduced in Lok Sabha.
• As the Bill was pending at the end of the session, an Ordinance with similar provisions was promulgated in 2021.  They abolish nine tribunals and transfer their functions to existing judicial bodies (mainly High Courts).

Significance of Tribunals:

• Enhanced the judicial system's flexibility: It offers an informal and flexible approach to proceedings compared to the stringent and inflexible ordinary court procedures.
• Swift and high-quality justice: It follows a straightforward procedure that facilitates efficient and quick resolution of cases.
• Cheaper: Their shorter case resolution time compared to ordinary courts, can lead to reduced expenses, as they are less cumbersome and slow-paced.
• The tribunals have reduced the burden of the cases on the ordinary courts.

Challenges posed by Tribunals:

• Tribunals provide separate laws and procedures for specific matters and thus restrict the rule of law that ensures the supremacy of ordinary law over government arbitrary functioning.
• Violations of the principle of natural justice: The civil and criminal courts follow a uniform code of procedure under C.P.C. (Code of Civil Procedure) and Cr.P.C. (Code of Criminal Procedure) while tribunals lack such stringent procedures and can create their own, potentially leading to arbitrariness in their functioning. 
• Since the tribunals do not follow precedents, it is not possible to predict future decisions.
• Tribunal members may not necessarily have a legal background, which is crucial for resolving disputes effectively.

Mains PYQ

1. How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India.  (UPSC 2018)