Tribunals in India function as specialized quasi-judicial bodies that aim to deliver swift, affordable, and expert dispute resolution. Their significance was recently underscored at the 10th All India Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Conference held in New Delhi, which focused on reforms to strengthen justice delivery mechanisms.

Tribunals are institutions established through legislation to adjudicate specific categories of disputes. They possess powers similar to those of civil courts, as seen in bodies like the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Unlike traditional courts, tribunals operate based on the principles of natural justice and are not bound by the procedural formalities of the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian Evidence Act. Their primary objective is to simplify legal processes and expedite the resolution of cases.

Constitutional Foundations: Articles 323-A and 323-B

The constitutional legitimacy of tribunals stems from the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.

• Article 323-A empowers Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals, such as the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SAT).
• Article 323-B allows both Parliament and State Legislatures to create tribunals for other matters, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
  To implement these provisions, the Government of India enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985, which led to the formal establishment of CAT and SAT.

Key Benefits of the Tribunal System

Tribunals offer several advantages that make them a vital component of India’s legal framework:

• They ensure speedy justice by relying on oral hearings and simplified procedures, which significantly reduce the time required for case disposal.
• Their panels often include technical experts who bring domain-specific knowledge to the adjudication process.
• Tribunals are cost-effective, as they do not require court fees or affidavits.
• They allow for adaptive decision-making, enabling revisions based on new facts and changing socio-economic contexts.
• By handling specialized disputes, tribunals help reduce the overwhelming backlog of over 4.5 crore cases in regular courts.

Jurisdictional Landscape: Tribunals vs. Traditional Courts

Tribunals operate within a distinct jurisdictional framework that sets them apart from ordinary courts:

• They have exclusive authority over certain types of disputes, such as those handled by CAT and NGT.
• Statutory provisions often limit the scope of judicial review by regular courts in matters adjudicated by tribunals.
• Some tribunals, like the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), serve as the final appellate authority, bypassing the traditional court system.
• However, concerns have been raised about executive influence over tribunal appointments, which may compromise their independence.
• The Tribunal Reforms Act of 2021 aimed to streamline the system by reducing the number of tribunals from 26 to 19, thereby enhancing efficiency and reducing overlap.

Challenges Undermining Tribunal Effectiveness

Despite their advantages, tribunals face several structural and operational challenges:

• Judicial independence is often compromised due to executive control over appointments and tenure, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the Rojer Mathew case (2019).
• Many tribunals continue to grapple with case backlogs; for instance, the AFT reported over 18,000 pending cases in 2021.
• Short tenures for tribunal members, typically ranging from three to four years, hinder continuity and institutional memory.
• Procedural inconsistencies across different tribunals create confusion for litigants and reduce transparency.
• Jurisdictional overlaps with High Courts and other judicial bodies lead to forum shopping and delays.
• Technical members may lack adequate legal training, affecting the quality of adjudication.
• Administrative control by the same ministries that tribunals are meant to review poses a conflict of interest, such as the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) being under the Department of Telecommunications.

Reform Agenda: Building a Robust Tribunal Framework

To address these challenges, several reforms have been proposed and partially implemented:

• Appointment processes should be overseen by selection committees headed by the Chief Justice of India to ensure transparency and judicial primacy.
• Vacancies in tribunals must be filled promptly through proactive recruitment strategies.
• A single nodal agency under the Ministry of Law and Justice should be established to monitor tribunal operations and ensure uniformity in appointments, tenure, and service conditions.
• The power of judicial review by High Courts should be restored, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Chandra Kumar case (1997).
• Tribunals should have benches across the country, ideally in locations where High Courts are situated, to ensure equitable access to justice for all citizens.

Tribunals play a crucial role in India’s justice architecture by offering specialized, efficient, and accessible legal remedies. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer famously stated, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” To uphold this principle, it is imperative to reinforce the independence, consistency, and reach of tribunals so they can truly fulfill their mandate of delivering timely and fair justice.

MAINS PYQs

1. 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. [UPSC 2025]
2. 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]