Tribunals

Why in the News?

Recently, SC struck down Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 relating to appointments, tenure, and service conditions of members of various Tribunals.

Key Highlights of the Judgement 

• Legislative Override over Judicial Directions: As per SC, the 2021 Act contradicts binding judicial pronouncements that repeatedly clarified the standards relating appointment, tenure, and functioning of tribunal members.
  • Earlier in 2020 Madras Bar Association case (MBA IV), SC had struck down the Tribunal Rules 2020 and in 2021 Madras Bar Association case (MBA V), the Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021. 
• Against the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy: The Act fails to remove the defects identified in prior judgments and instead reenacts them under a new label. 
  • This violates the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. 
• Present Status: SC held that until the Parliament enacts a new Act giving effect to its directions in the previous judgments, the directions given in the previous MBA IV and MBA V cases will continue to operate.
• National Tribunal Commission: The Court directed the Union to form a National Tribunal Commission within a period of four months.

Tribunal System in India

• About: Tribunals are judicial or quasi-judicial institutions established by law to provide a platform for faster adjudication compared to traditional courts, as well as expertise on certain subject matters. 
• Genesis: History of tribunals in India dates back to 1941 with the establishment of the first Tribunal, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal. 
• Constitutional Status: 42^nd Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Articles 323-A and 323-B dealing with Tribunals. 
  • Article 323A empowered Parliament to constitute administrative Tribunals (both at central and state level) for adjudication of matters concerning recruitment and service conditions of public servants.  
  • Article 323B specified certain subjects (like taxation and land reforms) for which Parliament or state legislatures may constitute tribunals by enacting a law.  
  • In 2010, the Supreme Court held that subject matters under Article 323B are not exclusive and could extend to any subject matters specified in the Seventh Schedule. 
• Appeals: Currently, tribunals have been created both as substitutes to High Courts and as subordinate to High Courts. 
  • In the former, appeals from Tribunals lie directly with SC. In the latter case, appeals are heard by the corresponding High Court.
  • In Chandan Kumar Case (2017), SC held that appeals against decisions of tribunals were allowed in the division bench of High Courts. 

Significance of Tribunals

• Specialization: Each tribunal is given specific jurisdiction to hear and decide cases within its designated area of expertise.
  • Some tribunals have appellate jurisdiction, meaning they hear appeals from decisions made by lower authorities or government bodies.
• Speedy Resolution: This is particularly important in areas where timely decisions are crucial, such as service matters, tax disputes, and environmental issues.
• Reduced Case Load: By handling specific types of cases, tribunals contribute to reducing the burden on traditional courts, helping to address the issue of judicial backlog.
• Accessibility: Tribunals are geographically dispersed, with benches located across the country.
• Efficiency in Service Matters: Administrative Tribunals, such as the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), expedite the resolution of service-related matters for government employees.

Constitutional balance between Judicial Independence and Parliamentary Sovereignty in India

• System of Checks and Balances: India's constitutional framework distributes power amongst three branches of government establishing an interplay between administrative sovereignty and judicial supremacy. 
  • While the Parliament could debate on policies, financial allocations, and implementation issues, the judiciary decides on the constitutionality and legality of executive actions.
• Constitutional Supremacy: It acts as the anchoring principle rejecting rigid scales between Parliament and judiciary making them both inferior to the Constitution. 
• Judicial Review: Article 13 prohibits the state from making laws that violate fundamental rights and through Judicial Review, judiciary can declare any law violative of basic structure or fundamental rights as unconstitutional. 
• Limitations on Parliament's Amending Power: A Constitution Amendment Bill needs support of more than half the members in each House of Parliament, and at least two thirds of the members present and voting.
  • Additionally, ratification by more than half the states is required for amendments that affect powers of states and the Judiciary. Further, Parliament cannot amend the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. 
• Immunity to the Members: Constitution guarantees protections to parliamentary proceedings and to Members of Parliament, who enjoy immunity from court proceedings for anything said or voted in the Parliament.
  • Similarly, the conduct of a SC or HC judge cannot be discussed in Parliament unless a motion for removal is under consideration.

Conclusion

While there have been instances of judicial activism and parliamentary legislations overriding court rulings, a healthy convention respecting the boundaries of each is essential to ensure that neither institution holds absolute power.