Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The increasing pendency of cases in Indian courts necessitated the establishment of specialized tribunals to expedite justice delivery. These tribunals, dealing with specific subject matters like taxation, environment, or labour, were envisioned as a supplementary mechanism, not a replacement for the ordinary judicial system. However, the proliferation of tribunals has sparked debate regarding their impact on the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court. The question of whether tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts is a complex one, requiring an examination of constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and the practical realities of the Indian legal landscape.
Arguments Supporting the View that Tribunals Curtail Jurisdiction
The establishment of tribunals inherently involves a transfer of jurisdiction from ordinary courts. This is achieved through specific legislation that empowers tribunals to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions in designated areas. For instance, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), established under the Companies Act, 2013, has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to corporate insolvency and reconstruction, significantly reducing the workload of High Courts. Similarly, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), established in 1985, handles disputes related to central government employees, diverting these cases from High Courts.
- Exclusive Jurisdiction: Many tribunals are granted exclusive jurisdiction, meaning ordinary courts cannot entertain cases falling within their domain.
- Ousting Clause: Legislation establishing tribunals often includes ‘ousting clauses’ which attempt to prevent judicial review by ordinary courts.
- Reduced Scrutiny: The specialized nature of tribunals can sometimes lead to a reduction in the level of judicial scrutiny compared to the broader review undertaken by High Courts.
Arguments Against the View that Tribunals Curtail Jurisdiction
While tribunals do handle cases previously within the purview of ordinary courts, it’s inaccurate to claim a complete curtailment of jurisdiction. Several safeguards exist to ensure judicial oversight and protect fundamental rights.
- Writ Jurisdiction: The High Courts retain writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, allowing them to intervene in cases of fundamental rights violations, even those originating in tribunals.
- Judicial Review: The Supreme Court, under Article 32 and Article 136, retains the power of judicial review over tribunal decisions. Landmark cases like Bihar State Financial Corporation v. Radha Kanta Jha (1998) affirmed the High Courts’ power to review tribunal orders.
- Appellate Mechanism: Most tribunals have an appellate mechanism, often leading to the Supreme Court, ensuring a final layer of judicial oversight.
Constitutional Validity of Tribunals
The constitutional validity of tribunals has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court. The power to establish tribunals is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it is derived from the court’s interpretative power. The Court has held that establishing tribunals is a legitimate exercise of legislative power, provided it doesn’t violate fundamental rights or undermine the basic structure of the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, though controversial, introduced Article 323A and 323B, providing a constitutional basis for establishing administrative tribunals. However, the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) struck down certain provisions of the 42nd Amendment relating to tribunals, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence.
Competency of Tribunals
The competency of tribunals is defined by the specific legislation under which they are established. This includes their powers to summon witnesses, examine evidence, and pass binding orders. However, concerns have been raised regarding the lack of uniformity in the appointment process, terms of service, and infrastructure across different tribunals. The National Commission for Labour (NCL) Report (2002) highlighted the need for a standardized framework for tribunals. The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 (now an Act) aims to address these issues by providing for a common tenure, search-cum-selection committee, and service conditions for tribunal members. The Bill also seeks to dissolve several existing tribunals and transfer their functions to existing judicial bodies.
| Tribunal | Act | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|
| NCLT | Companies Act, 2013 & Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 | Corporate insolvency, reconstruction, and winding up |
| CAT | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 | Service matters of Central Government employees |
| NGT | National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 | Environmental disputes |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while tribunals undoubtedly reduce the workload of ordinary courts and provide specialized expertise, the assertion that they completely curtail jurisdiction is an oversimplification. The constitutional framework, coupled with the continued writ jurisdiction of High Courts and the appellate powers of the Supreme Court, ensures judicial oversight. The recent Tribunals Reforms Act is a step towards streamlining the tribunal system and enhancing its efficiency. However, maintaining a balance between specialized adjudication and the fundamental principles of judicial review remains crucial for upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens’ rights.
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.