Q2. Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.
Possible Introductions
Contextual:
Tribunals, introduced after the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976, Articles 323A & 323B), were intended to reduce burden on regular courts and provide specialized, speedy, and cost-effective justice.
Judicial intro:
In Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010), the SC recognized tribunals as a “parallel mechanism of dispute resolution,” but emphasized independence and judicial standards.
Philosophical:
As modern governance becomes complex, specialized justice delivery through tribunals complements the generalist court system.
Main Body
1. Need for Administrative Tribunals vs Court System
-
- Specialisation: Courts are generalist; tribunals focus on technical domains (e.g., CAT for service matters, NGT for environment).
- Speed & Efficiency: Tribunals promise quicker disposal compared to overburdened judiciary (~5 crore pending cases in 2023).
- Cost-effective: Procedural informality reduces litigation cost.
- Expertise: Panels include judicial + technical members → better handling of complex issues (taxation, environment, telecom).
- Accessibility: Decentralised benches ensure wider reach compared to higher courts.
But Limitations:
-
- Questions about independence (executive control over appointments, tenure).
- Parallel system leading to jurisdictional conflicts (tribunal decisions still appealable to SC/HC).
2. Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 – Rationalisation Measures
-
- Abolition/Merger of Tribunals: 5 appellate tribunals (e.g., Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Airport Appellate Tribunal) merged with High Courts.
- Uniform Terms of Service: Common rules for appointment, tenure (4 years), eligibility, salaries.
- Centralisation of Appointments: Selection committees but with executive primacy (later read down by SC).
- Appeals Routed to High Courts: Reduced multiplicity of tribunals.
3. Impact of Reforms (Critical Assessment)
Positive:
-
- Rationalisation: Avoided fragmentation and tribunal proliferation.
- Judicial Consistency: Appeals now directly with High Courts, ensuring uniformity.
- Resource Efficiency: Merging avoided duplication of infrastructure and staff.
Concerns:
-
- Burden on High Courts: Already facing backlog, now must handle extra caseload (e.g., IP matters).
- Loss of Specialised Expertise: Abolition of sector-specific tribunals weakens technical adjudication.
- Tenure & Independence Issues: Short 4-year terms, re-appointment, and executive dominance compromise independence (criticised in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2021).
- Access Concerns: High Court benches concentrated in metros → reduces accessibility for litigants in smaller towns.
Sweet Spot – Table
| Need for Tribunals | Impact of 2021 Reforms |
|---|---|
| Expertise in complex issues (IPR, environment, telecom) | Many specialised tribunals abolished → risk of generalist adjudication |
| Quicker disposal vs regular courts | High Courts burdened, may slow down cases |
| Cost-effective, accessible benches | Centralisation may reduce accessibility |
| Reduce burden on courts | Backlog shifted back to judiciary |
Possible Conclusions
Balanced:
Tribunals are necessary supplements to courts, but reforms of 2021 must strike a balance between rationalisation and preservation of expertise.
Policy-linked:
True reform requires ensuring judicial independence in appointments, adequate tenure, and resources, not merely merging tribunals.
Philosophical:
While rationalisation prevents tribunal “overgrowth,” dilution of specialisation risks undermining justice in technical fields, contradicting the very rationale of tribunals.
Forward-looking:
Future reforms should focus on hybrid models — fewer tribunals but highly empowered, independent, and accessible — to achieve the twin goals of speedy justice and specialised adjudication.
