Tribunals Court ( Important for APSC)

A tribunals is a quasi-judicial entity established to address issues such as resolving disputes in administrative or tax matters. It serves various functions, including settling disputes, deciding the rights of parties in contention, rendering administrative rulings, reviewing existing administrative decisions, and more.

The term ‘tribunal’ has its origins in the word ‘tribunes,’ referring to the magistrates of the Classical Roman Republic. In essence, a tribunal is reminiscent of the office held by ‘tribunes,’ who were Roman officials during both the monarchy and the republic. Their role was to safeguard citizens from arbitrary actions by aristocratic magistrates.

In a broader context, a tribunal can encompass any individual or institution with the authority to assess, adjudicate, or resolve claims or disputes, irrespective of whether it carries the title of ‘tribunal.’

Why is there a Need for Tribunals?

•  To address the issue of pending cases in various courts, domestic and specialized tribunals have been established under different statutes, collectively known as “Tribunals.”

•  The primary purposes of these Tribunals include reducing the workload of regular courts, expediting the decision-making process, and providing specialized forums staffed by legal experts and professionals well-versed in the specific areas governed by each Tribunal.

• Tribunals serve an essential and specialized role in the justice system, helping alleviate the burden on already congested courts.

• They are responsible for hearing and resolving disputes across various domains, including environmental matters, armed forces issues, taxation, and administrative disputes.

What are the Constitutional Provisions?

• Tribunals were not originally a part of the Indian Constitution but were introduced through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.
•  Article 323-A addresses Administrative Tribunals, while Article 323-B pertains to tribunals for various other matters.
•  Under Article 323-B, both the Parliament and state legislatures have the authority to establish tribunals for adjudicating disputes in several areas, including taxation, foreign exchange, industrial and labor issues, land reforms, urban property ceilings, parliamentary and state legislative elections, food-related matters, and rent and tenancy rights.

Articles 323 A and 323 B differ in the following aspects:

•  Article 323 A pertains to the establishment of tribunals for public service matters exclusively, whereas Article 323 B encompasses the establishment of tribunals for various other specified matters.
•  While tribunals under Article 323 A can be established solely by Parliament, those under Article 323 B can be established by both Parliament and state legislatures, depending on the subject falling within their legislative competence.
•  Article 323 A allows for a single tribunal at the center and one for each state or two or more states. It does not involve a hierarchy of tribunals. In contrast, Article 323 B permits the creation of a hierarchical system of tribunals.
•  Article 262 of the Indian Constitution assigns a role to the Central government in resolving conflicts related to inter-state rivers that may arise among the regional/state governments.

Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021

The government has introduced the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021, which aims to dissolve several existing tribunals and reallocate their functions to the existing judicial bodies.

The Ordinance proposes to amend the Finance Act of 2017 to incorporate provisions regarding the composition of search-cum-selection committees and the tenure of members for 19 tribunals, including the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, within the Act itself.

Here is a list of appellate bodies affected by the Tribunals Reform Ordinance 2021, along with the proposed entities to which the functions of these discussed tribunals will be transferred:

• Appellate Body: Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

•  Appellate Body: Railway Rates Tribunal

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

•  Appellate Body: Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal (AERAAT)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: Cyber Appellate Tribunal

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: Airport Appellate Tribunal

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

•  Appellate Body: Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal (PVPAT)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• -Appellate Body: Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (ATFP)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT)

  – Proposed Transfer: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)

• Appellate Body: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

•  Appellate Body: National Highways Tribunal (NHT)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: Appellate Tribunal for PMLA (ATPMLA)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: Authority for Advance Rulings (Customs and Central Excise)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

•  Appellate Body: Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: National Tax Tribunal (NTT)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

• Appellate Body: Appellate Tribunal for Human Trusts (ATHTR)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

•  Appellate Body: Appellate Tribunal for UTGST (ATUTGST)

  – Proposed Transfer: High Courts

Provisions Proposed in the Tribunals Reform Ordinance 2021:

Search-cum-Selection Committee

•  The search-cum-selection committee is responsible for recommending chairpersons and members for appointment by the central government in the Tribunal. The composition of this committee, as outlined in the Tribunals Ordinance 2021, includes:

• Chairperson: The Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice, with the casting vote.
• Two secretaries nominated by the Central Government.
•  The sitting or outgoing Chairperson, a retired Supreme Court Judge, or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court.
•  The Secretary of the Ministry under which the Tribunal operates, with no voting rights.

Term of Office for Tribunal Members

•  The Tribunals Reform Ordinance specifies the following terms of office:

•   Chairperson: Four years or until reaching the age of 70, whichever occurs earlier.
• Remaining Members: Four years or until reaching the age of 67, whichever occurs earlier.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)

•  The ordinance aims to include the NCDRC within the scope of the Finance Act 2017. The NCDRC was established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Tribunals Introduction

•  Tribunals were not originally part of the Constitution of India but were introduced in 1985.
• Their purpose is to provide swift, cost-effective, and decentralized resolution of disputes across various matters.
• Tribunals offer an alternative to the conventional court system for dispute resolution.
• Some tribunals, like specialized government agencies, possess decision-making powers conferred upon them by law.
•  The Constitution initially lacked provisions for tribunals, but the 42nd Amendment Act introduced these provisions based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee.

• The Amendment added Part XIV-A to the Constitution, known as ‘Tribunals,’ comprising two articles.

• Article 323A

Administrative Tribunals for disputes related to public service recruitment and service conditions. The Central Administrative Tribunal was established under this provision.

• Article 323B

Deals with tribunals for various other subjects, including taxation, industrial and labor matters, foreign exchange, land reforms, food, urban property ceilings, parliamentary and state legislative elections, rent and tenancy rights.

•  While Article 323A addresses administrative tribunals established solely by the Parliament, Article 323B covers other types of tribunals, such as the National Green Tribunal, Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), etc.
• Tribunals under Article 323A are established exclusively by the Parliament, whereas those under Article 323B can be established by both the Parliament and State Legislature.
• Article 323A permits a single tribunal at the central level and one for each state or a group of states, while Article 323B allows for a hierarchical structure of tribunals.

Administrative Tribunals

Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals:

• Administrative tribunals are established through statutory enactments by Parliament or legislatures.
• They possess a quasi-judicial nature, meaning they exhibit some, though not all, characteristics of a court.
• These tribunals operate based on the principles of natural justice and are not bound by the Civil Procedure Code.
• They have the authority to summon witnesses, administer oaths, and compel the submission of documents, similar to regular courts.
•  Decisions of administrative tribunals can be challenged through writs of prohibition and certiorari.
• Administrative tribunals are autonomous entities and are not subject to administrative interference.

Advantages of Administrative Tribunals

– Tribunals provide flexibility compared to standard courts bound by strict procedures.

– They offer cost-effective and swift dispensation of justice.

– Tribunal procedures are straightforward and comprehensible even for individuals without legal expertise.

– These tribunals alleviate the burden on conventional courts, which are often inundated with cases.

Disadvantages of Administrative Tribunals

• They may deviate from the principles of the “Rule of Law,” which seeks to prevent arbitrary exercise of power by institutions or individuals.
• The Rule of Law ensures that everyone is accountable to fair and equitable laws.
• Administrative tribunals lack a uniform code of procedure, unlike standard courts that have consistent processes for civil and criminal cases.
• Some tribunals are managed by subject matter experts with no experience in judicial proceedings, leading to the adoption of summary procedures.

Challenges of Administrative Tribunals

• Autonomy in the appointment and funding of tribunals is lacking.
• Appeals against tribunal orders can be made in the High Court, defeating the purpose of reducing the burden on regular courts
•  Inadequate infrastructure hinders the efficient functioning of tribunals.
•  The government typically appoints retired judges as tribunal chairpersons, potentially leading to favoritism to secure post-retirement appointments.
• To ensure autonomy, structural and functional reforms of tribunals are needed, reducing executive influence.
•  Implementing judicial oversight of tribunals is crucial to maintain the Rule of Law.

Other Tribunals

Armed Forces Tribunal

• Established under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, this military tribunal resolves disputes regarding commissions, emoluments, appointments, and service conditions of armed forces personnel.
•  It consists of a Principal Bench in New Delhi and ten Regional Benches.

National Green Tribunal

•  Formed in 2010, this tribunal expeditiously handles cases related to environmental protection and conservation of natural resources, including forests.

Water Disputes Tribunal

• Constituted to settle disputes among Indian states regarding water-sharing from rivers crossing multiple states.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)

• Established in 1941, the ITAT deals with appeals under direct tax acts.
• Decisions of the ITAT are final, with appeals to the High Court permitted only if a substantial question of law arises.
•  The tribunal operates with 63 Benches.

Tribunal vs Court

Tribunals and courts share a common objective: resolving disputes that impact individuals’ rights. While they exhibit similarities in some aspects, notable differences set them apart.

The origin of these institutions distinguishes them. Tribunals are typically established through statutes or legislation, making them creatures of specific laws, while courts operate under the constitution or established laws

Sl. No.	Court of Law	Tribunal
1	It is a part of the traditional judicial system wherein the powers are derived from the State.	It is an agency created by Statute and invested with judicial powers.
2	Civil courts have the power to try all civil suits unless there is an express or implied bar.	It has the power to try cases that are of the type that the Statute confers upon them. They are formed for adjudicating cases of a particular kind.
3	Judges of the courts are independent of the executive.	Tenure, terms and conditions of the services of the members of tribunals are entirely in the hands of the executive.
4	The presiding officer here is trained in law.	The presiding officer may or may not be trained in law.
5	The judge should be impartial and not interested in the subject matter of the dispute.	Here, the tribunal may be a party to the dispute.
6	Courts of law are bound by all rules of procedure and evidence.	Tribunals are bound by the principles of natural justice and not the civil procedure codes.
7	Courts can decide vires of legislation.	Tribunals cannot decide the vires of legislation.

For more blog visit our website – Click Here Also Read –

High Court ( Important for APSC)

State Legislature ( Important for APSC)