Evolution of Tribunal system in India

‘Tribunal’ is an administrative body established for the purpose of discharging quasi-judicial duties. An Administrative Tribunal is neither a Court nor an executive body. It stands somewhere midway between a Court and an administrative body. The exigencies of the situation proclaiming the enforcement of new rights in the wake of escalating State activities and furtherance of the demands of justice have led to the establishment of Tribunals.

The increase in number of statutory Tribunals mirrors the rise in State activities. Because the legislation has progressively bestowed benefits on individuals and subjected their everyday lives to propagating control and management, the scope for dispute between an individual and the State has emerged.

The social legislation of the twentieth century demanded tribunals for purely administrative reasons; they could offer speedier, cheaper and more accessible justice, essential for the administration of welfare schemes involving large number of small claims. The process of Courts of law is elaborate, slow and costly.

The delay in justice administration is one of the biggest obstacles which have been tackled with the establishment of Tribunals.

Evolution of Tribunal system in India

Justice Rankin Committee Report, 1924 suggested various reforms to deal with the pendency of cases, as delay and backlog of cases had been a problem even in pre-independence period also.

In 1941 first Tribunal was established in the form of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal.

A study Team on Administrative Tribunals  set-up by the first Administrative Reforms Commission recommended in 1969, the setting up of Civil Services Tribunals to act as the final adjudicatory authority in respect of orders inflicting the major punishments of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank.

Wanchoo Committee, 1970, recommended for the establishment of Income-Tax Settlement Commission, to serve as an alternative dispute resolution body in the administration of fiscal laws, the primary objective of which was to increase the realisation of revenue.

The High Court Arrears Committee set up under the chairmanship of Justice J. C. Shah (1969), recommended for setting up of an independent Tribunal to handle service matters pending before the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

In its 58th Report (1974) titled ‘Structure and Jurisdiction of the Higher Judiciary’, the Law Commission urged that separate high powered Tribunal or Commission should be set up to deal with the service matters and that approaching the Courts should be the last resort.

Later on, the Swaran Singh Committee which was appointed to study, ‘the required changes in fundamental laws’, recommended in 1976 that the Administrative Tribunals may be set up under a Central law, both at the State level and at the Centre to decide cases relating to service matters.

Based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, Part XIV-A was added by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, titled as ‘Tribunals’ which provided for the establishment of ‘Administrative Tribunals’ under Article 323-A and ‘Tribunals for other matters’ under Article 323-B.

The main objective of establishing Tribunals as set out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 is as under:

‘To reduce the mounting arrears in High Courts and to secure the speedy disposal of service matters, revenue matters and certain other matters of special importance in the context of the socio-economic development and progress, it is considered expedient to provide for administrative and other tribunals for dealing with such matters while preserving the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in regard to such matters under article 136 of the Constitution.’

With the enactment of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, a large number of cases relating to service matters pending before various Courts were brought within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals. Administrative Tribunals created under Article 323A have been freed from technical rules of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and procedural shackles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but, at the same time, they have been vested with the powers of Civil Court in respect of some matters including the review of their own decisions and are bound by the principles of natural justice.

The Act provides for the establishment of three kinds of administrative Tribunals:

i. The Central Administrative Tribunal,

ii. The State Administrative Tribunals and

iii. The Joint Administrative Tribunals.

The “High Level Committee on Competition Policy, “headed by S.V.S. Raghavan, recommended to enact a new law and the setting up of the Competition Commission of India, which would effectively deal with specified anti-competitive practices in its ‘adjudicatory effort’ and would have powers to mete out deterrent punishment to the violators. It was recommended that the investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions should be separated to respect the need of judicial independence.In pursuance thereof, the Competition Act, 2002 was enacted.

The Finance Act, 2017 has merged eight tribunals on the ground of functional similarity and has given the power to the Government to appoint and remove the members.

Tribunals have been established with the object of discharging quasi-judicial duties by acting judicially which differentiates them from other administrative bodies. Tribunals are endowed with the judicial functions as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions. Thus, for the efficient and effective working of these Tribunals, persons who have served in the higher judiciary should be appointed in accordance with the principles laid down by the Constitutional Courts.

As a quasi-judicial body, the Tribunal performs the judicial functions for deciding the matters in a judicious manner. It is not bound by law to observe all the technicalities, complexities, refinements, discriminations, and restrictions that are applicable to the courts of record in conducting trials, but at the same time, a Tribunal is required to look at all matters from the standpoint of substance as well as form and be certain that the hearing is conducted and the matter is disposed of with fairness, honesty, and impartiality.

As a result of the judgement dated 18 March 1997 of the Supreme Court, the appeals against the orders of an Administrative Tribunal shall lie before the Division Bench of the concerned High Court.

As the Tribunals are vested with the judicial powers which had been hitherto vested in or exercised by Courts, the Tribunals should possess the same independence, security and capacity which are possessed by the judges. However, if the Tribunals are intended to serve an area which requires specialised knowledge or expertise, the appointment of Technical members in addition to judicial members must always be welcomed, as they can provide an input which may not be available with the judicial members.

The Law Commission of India persistently suggested that the power of judicial review of the High Court’s against a judgment of the Tribunal is not only time consuming, but also expensive and there is always a possibility of various High Courts interpreting the same statutory provision differently.

List of Tribunals in India

Industrial Tribunals set up under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Railway Rates Tribunals set up under Indian Railways Act, 1890

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set up under Income-Tax Act, 1961

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), TRAI Act 1997

Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,under the Customs Act, 1962

Administrative Tribunals under 1985 Act

The National Green Tribunal under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010

Inter-State River Water Disputes tribunal set up under Inter State River Water Disputes (ISRWD) Act, 1956.

Appellate tribunal for electricity was setup under 2003 Act

Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007