Profile
Settings
Refer your friends
Sign out
Tribunals
Tribunal is a term used for any institution or person who has the authority to advocate or determine certain claims and settle disputes. The term ‘tribunals’ is derived from the word ‘Tribunes’. Tribunes were the classical magistrates of the Roman Republic. It was a platform on which deciding authority used to sit. It also depicted a sense of greater authority.
Tribunals also help in determining the issues between contesting parties. Originally, there was no provision about tribunals in the Indian Constitution. It was added in the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The nature of tribunals is quasi-judicial. It deals with administrative or tax-related issues and advocates them along with reviewing existing administrative decisions.
They provide a forum of discussion to resolve disputes and help in reducing the burden on courts. They also help decrease the delay in solving cases. Different statutes have various tribunals established under them to hasten the process of decision-making. The quick process of justice delivery helps resolve disputes regarding taxes, administration, the armed forces, and the environment.
What does the constitution say about Tribunals?
The provision about the tribunals was only added to the Indian Constitution after the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. This Amendment Act added a new part to the constitution Part XIV-A, which consists of two articles.
- Article 323 A deals with the administrative matters
- Article 323 B deals with other matters not falling in the above category
Article 323 A
Article 323 A mentions that the Parliament has the authority to provide for the establishment of tribunals that settle administrative disputes. They deal with appointments, conditions of service of public service, local bodies, corporations, and public authorities. It also has the authority to take up the pending cases before High Court and civil court. Central Government can establish such tribunals at the central or state level for speedy and expeditious providence of justice, according to the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985.
Article 323 B
This article discusses the following issues:
- Taxation
- Foreign exchange
- Export/ import
- Foodstuff
- Rent and tenancy
- Landforms
- Industrial labour
- Property
The difference between Article 323 A and Article 323
The difference between articles 323 A and 323 B can be summarised by the following table:
Article 323 A | Article 323 B |
Contemplates establishing rules for public service matters only | Deals with the matters mentioned above |
Can only be established by the Parliament | Can be established by the state legislature along with the parliament. |
Only one should be set up for the centre as there is no hierarchy of tribunals. | A hierarchy of tribunals can be created |
The Difference Between Tribunals and Courts
Differences in terms of | Tribunals | Courts |
Law Involved | This was established under administrative law and every department is given the authority to look after the matters. | |
Types | Different laws are designed for dealing with particular matters. For example-Civil Aviation Tribunal, Water Disputes Tribunal, Immigration Tribunal, Pension Appellate Tribunal. | Courts are categorised as Supreme Court, high courts, and subordinate courts. |
Code of Conduct | Official code of conduct is followed, which is why setting up is less tedious and less formal. Their performance is reported to the higher courts. | Code of professional ethics is followed here. |
Justice delivery | These deliver justice faster and are more cost-effective. | The expenses are a matter of the case. |
Judges | The adjudicators have better knowledge and technical expertise, hence they deal with them more professionally. | Here the judges are not technically well-equipped to handle specific cases. |
Decision(Binding OR not) | The decisions of tribunals are binding on the parties but they are open to judicial review. | The decision is binding. It can be challenged in a court of higher level. |
Adjudicators | Number of additives may be appointed for settling disputes. | A single judge may deliver justice. |
Jurisdiction | The jurisdiction of a tribunal is quite limited when compared to a court. | The jurisdiction of a court extends to matters of business, corporate, family, or civil or criminal matters. |
National Green Tribunal
The National Environment Tribunal Act 1995, and the National Environment Appellate Authority Act 1997 were insufficient. This resulted in a necessity for a more efficient institution to handle environmental matters.
In its 186th report, the Law Commission referred to the experience of environmental courts in Australia and New Zealand and urged multi-faceted courts with judicial and expert participation. Thus, a separate quasi-judicial body of judges and environmental specialists, the National Green Tribunal, was constituted for the resolution of cases before the courts.
Conclusion
Tribunals are efficient in terms of dispensing justice as swiftly as possible. These help to lessen the load and the cost placed on the courts. Nonetheless, the method is simple to comprehend, fast to complete, and very beneficial in terms of increasing the efficiency of the justice delivery system. Because the members of Indian tribunals are appointed by the administration, they are often referred to as “instruments of the executive”.
