Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Tribunals are quasi-judicial institutions established to resolve disputes outside the regular court system, often dealing with specialized areas like taxation, labour, or environmental law. They were conceived as a mechanism to reduce the burden on High Courts and expedite justice delivery. However, the degree of independence enjoyed by these tribunals, particularly those exercising powers previously vested in High Courts, has been a subject of debate. The core argument revolves around whether maintaining efficiency should come at the cost of compromising the fundamental principles of judicial independence, enshrined in the Constitution, which are paramount for fair and impartial justice. The recent trend of establishing tribunals for various matters necessitates a re-evaluation of their autonomy from the executive.
Arguments for Tribunal Independence
The argument for granting tribunals the same degree of independence as the Supreme Court and High Courts, especially those handling functions previously of High Courts, rests on several pillars:
- Constitutional Principles: Article 14 (equality before law), Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies) are all undermined if tribunals lack independence. A lack of independence can lead to biased decisions impacting fundamental rights.
- Judicial Review: Tribunals exercising jurisdiction similar to High Courts should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and judicial review. This necessitates independence to ensure decisions are based on law, not executive influence.
- Avoiding Executive Control: Executive control over appointments, transfers, and conditions of service of tribunal members raises concerns about bias. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) highlighted the need for a robust and independent mechanism for appointments to tribunals.
- Specialized Expertise: While tribunals are established for specialized knowledge, this expertise is rendered ineffective if the decision-making process is compromised by external pressures.
- Precedent & Consistency: Decisions of tribunals handling matters previously decided by High Courts should carry the same weight and contribute to legal precedent. This requires a perception of impartiality.
Arguments Against Complete Independence
Conversely, there are arguments against granting tribunals *complete* independence mirroring that of the Supreme Court and High Courts:
- Efficiency & Cost: Tribunals were established to provide a faster and more cost-effective alternative to High Courts. Excessive independence, with elaborate safeguards, could negate these benefits.
- Executive Function: Some argue that tribunals, dealing with policy-related matters (e.g., taxation), inherently involve executive policy considerations. Complete independence might hinder effective policy implementation.
- Accountability Concerns: While independence is crucial, some level of accountability is also necessary. Complete insulation from executive oversight could lead to a lack of responsiveness and potential misuse of power.
- Resource Constraints: Providing tribunals with the same level of resources and infrastructure as High Courts is financially challenging.
Existing Framework & Concerns
Currently, the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 (now an Act) seeks to dissolve several existing tribunals and transfer their functions to existing judicial bodies. This has raised concerns about further eroding the independence of specialized dispute resolution mechanisms. The Act provides for a Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointments, but the dominance of executive members remains a point of contention.
| Feature | Supreme Court/High Courts | Tribunals (Current) |
|---|---|---|
| Appointment | Collegium System (Judges appoint Judges) | Search-cum-Selection Committee (Executive Dominance) |
| Removal | Impeachment (Difficult Process) | Executive Order (Easier Process) |
| Financial Independence | Charged Expenditure (Directly from Consolidated Fund) | Dependent on Ministry of Finance |
The MDMK v. Union of India (2016) case highlighted the constitutional validity of tribunals but also emphasized the need for safeguards to ensure their independence. The Supreme Court stressed that tribunals must function without any external interference.
Conclusion
The ideal scenario lies in striking a balance between efficiency and independence. While complete mirroring of the Supreme Court and High Courts’ independence might be impractical, tribunals handling substantial judicial functions – particularly those previously under High Court jurisdiction – require a significantly higher degree of autonomy. Strengthening the appointment process, ensuring financial independence, and providing robust safeguards against executive interference are crucial steps. The focus should be on creating a system where tribunals can deliver speedy justice without compromising the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality, and the rule of law. A periodic review of the Tribunals Act and its implementation is essential to address emerging challenges and ensure effective dispute resolution.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.