Profile
Settings
Refer your friends
Sign out
The Indian legal system is already overworked due to a backlog of cases. There are around 91000 outstanding cases at the front of the different high courts as of June 2021. This step will increase the load. In addition, the Supreme Court has already emphasised the utility and need of distinct tribunals as alternatives to the high courts as a method of reducing the load.
What are Tribunals?
A ‘Tribunal’ is a regulatory authority formed to perform quasi-judicial functions. An Regulatory Tribunal is not a court and neither a government body. It is positioned in between a Judiciary and an administrative centre. The necessities of the circumstances calling for the implementation of new rights within the context of growing State operations and the advancement of justice demands have resulted in the formation of Tribunals.
Recent Supreme court view on Tribunals
The Supreme Court stressed the necessity of ensuring the tribunals perform their judicial functions without interference from either the executive branch, whether intentional or unintentional
To serve the interests of tribunals until the National Tribunal Commission is established, a special section of the Finance Ministry will be established
A bench headed by Chief justice L Nageswara Rao stated that while creating such a commission would boost the image of tribunals and instil faith in plaintiffs’ minds, relying on the parental department for all of their demands would not “extricate them from the executive’s grip”
Tribunal reform act 2021(A Short Note)
In April 2021, the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021 was enacted. The Tribunals Reform Act of 2021 effectively repeals the ordinance. The Act abolishes various appellate tribunals/boards and transfers their responsibilities to other existing judicial authorities, such as high courts. It aims to abolish some appellate tribunals and amend the conditions of employment for tribunal employees. The Supreme Court asked the administration about the law’s rapid passage and also urged the government to explain why the measure was introduced.
Controversial issues related to Tribunals
Conflict of Interest:
The new laws do not eliminate parent administrative ministries’ (ministries against which tribunals must issue orders) influence over tribunals
For example, the Armed Services Tribunal acts the same under the ministry that is just a party in litigation, as well as the ministry also has guideline powers and controls the tribunal’s budget, facilities, and people
This is contrary to the principles of Natural Justice
Rules Undermining Judicial Independence
Under the new rules, the selection committee can operate even in the absence of a judicial member, implying that a committee fully (or primarily) composed of executive officers can pick members of tribunals.
Unwarranted Impact of the Executive
The new regulations also require that perhaps the secretary of such a ministry on which the tribunal seems to be to issue orders sit on the committee that selects the tribunal’s adjudicating members
In the Madras Bar Association issue in 2014, the Supreme Court referred to this structure as a “mockery of the Constitution”
Affecting Members’ Independence
The new regulations call for a retiring age of 65 years, even for senior judges who retire first from high courts at the age of 62, giving them at most a three-year term
This is in contrast to the minimal five to seven-year tenure imposed by the Supreme Court inside the Indian union versus R. Gandhi case in 2010 to maintain continuity
Furthermore, the prohibition on working in government upon retiring from the tribunals has been lifted. As a result, members’ independence suffers greatly
In contravention of Supreme Court orders
The new regulations include confusing sections indicating that any individual with expertise in economics, trade, management, industry, or administration can be nominated to certain tribunals
Contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgement in the R Gandhi case, this might allow members with non-judicial/legal backgrounds to become panel chairpersons
The problems of Tribunals
The Supreme Court has criticised the bill’s quick passage in parliament without appropriate debate. The government also has reinstated laws that were previously overturned by the Supreme Court inside this Madras Bar Association matter (2021)
The sections of the ordinance dealing with the tenure as well as terms of employment of tribunal members and the chairman were previously overturned by the courts
According to the new statute, the head of a tribunal must be beyond the age of fifty. This jeopardises tenure security. It should be emphasised that the Supreme Court overturned this clause, as well as the ordinance’s four-year term provision. However, both of these are covered in the Act
The statute also contradicts the principles of division of powers with judicial independence by allowing the central government to create judgements based on the recommendations of the search-and-selection committee
The transfer of cases from domain-specific authorities to high courts suggests that the competence required to hear matters related to a given sector, such as film, arts, and so on, wouldn’t longer be accessible
Furthermore, the Indian legal system is already overworked due to a backlog of cases. There are around 91000 outstanding cases at the front of the different high courts as of June 2021. This step will increase the load. In addition, the Supreme Court has already emphasised the utility and need of distinct tribunals as alternatives to the high courts as a method of reducing the load
The minimum age requirement of 50 years remains in the Bill
The Chairperson and members of such a tribunal will continue to serve for four years
The Search-cum-Selection Committee’s suggestion of two candidates for each office, with the choice to be made by the government within three months
Conclusion
The issues related to tribunals have been increasing day by day and they need certain rules so that the load given by the government to them should be decreased and they should do their work peacefully and legally.
