Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Administrative Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established by law to adjudicate disputes relating to administrative and service matters, distinct from the ordinary court system. Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution provide for their establishment, aiming to ensure speedy and specialized justice. The persistent issue of judicial backlog and the increasing complexity of administrative governance underscored the need for these specialized forums. While they share characteristics with courts, their unique structure and mandate position them as crucial instruments in India's justice delivery system, reducing the burden on conventional courts and offering domain-specific expertise.
Need for Administrative Tribunals vs. the Court System
The establishment of administrative tribunals addresses several limitations of the traditional court system, making them a necessity for efficient governance and justice delivery.- Specialized Expertise: Tribunals comprise judicial and technical members, offering domain-specific knowledge crucial for complex administrative, service, taxation, or environmental matters. For instance, the National Green Tribunal handles intricate environmental disputes with scientific expertise.
- Speed and Efficiency: Designed with simpler procedures and less formal rules of evidence than courts, tribunals expedite dispute resolution. This helps in reducing the average disposal time significantly compared to the 3-5 years often seen in regular courts.
- Decongestion of Courts: By handling a large volume of specific cases, tribunals significantly reduce the caseload of High Courts and the Supreme Court, allowing them to focus on constitutional and fundamental rights issues. As of 2022-23, the top five central tribunals collectively handled over 3.5 lakh cases.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Accessibility: With lower litigation costs and simplified processes, tribunals make justice more accessible and affordable for ordinary citizens, aligning with the principle of equal justice under Article 39A.
- Flexibility: Tribunals are not bound by the strict procedural codes like the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the Indian Evidence Act, allowing for more flexible and adaptable proceedings based on the nature of the dispute.
Impact of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021
The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, later enacted as the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, aimed to streamline the tribunal system.Key Reforms Introduced:
- Abolition of Appellate Bodies: The Act dissolved several appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), and Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal. Their functions were transferred to High Courts and commercial courts.
- Standardization of Appointment and Tenure: It sought to standardize the qualifications, appointment, tenure, salaries, and service conditions of tribunal members. For instance, it stipulated a four-year term with an upper age limit of 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members, with a minimum age of 50 for appointment.
- Enhanced Administrative Control: The reforms aimed to centralize administrative control over tribunals under the Ministry of Finance.
Assessment of Impact:
The reforms had both positive intentions and significant challenges:
- Potential Positives:
- Streamlining: By abolishing redundant tribunals, it aimed to reduce fragmentation and overlap in jurisdiction, fostering greater clarity in the legal framework.
- Uniformity: The goal was to bring uniformity in the appointment and service conditions across various tribunals.
- Challenges and Criticisms:
- Increased Burden on High Courts: Transferring the functions of abolished tribunals back to High Courts raised concerns about increasing the already heavy judicial backlog and potentially diminishing specialized adjudication.
- Threat to Judicial Independence: Provisions related to the composition of search-cum-selection committees (with significant executive representation) and the short tenure of members were seen as undermining the independence of tribunals. The Supreme Court highlighted that the executive, often a litigant, having a dominant role in appointments creates a conflict of interest.
- Lack of Specialization: Shifting specialized cases to generalist High Courts could compromise the expert adjudication that tribunals were designed to provide.
- Judicial Scrutiny: The Supreme Court, in November 2025, struck down several key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, for violating the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers, calling it an "impermissible legislative override" of its previous judgments. The court also directed the government to establish a National Tribunal Commission.
Conclusion
Administrative tribunals play an indispensable role in India's legal landscape, offering specialized, speedy, and cost-effective justice, thereby alleviating the immense burden on the traditional court system. The 2021 tribunal reforms, while aiming for rationalization and efficiency, faced significant judicial pushback primarily due to concerns over judicial independence and potential erosion of specialization. For tribunals to truly fulfill their mandate as efficient and impartial adjudicatory bodies, future reforms must prioritize strengthening their autonomy, ensuring security of tenure for members, and establishing an independent National Tribunal Commission, as reiterated by the Supreme Court, to foster public trust and uphold the rule of law.
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.