Tribunals in India Introduction

• Tribunals are specialized, quasi-judicial bodies established to resolve specific disputes such as administrative and tax-related issues.
• They adjudicate disputes, determine rights, and review administrative decisions.
• As per the National Judicial Data Grid (2024), more than 4.5 crore cases are pending in India, underscoring the need for an efficient tribunal system.
• The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, was introduced to merge and rationalize tribunals, aiming to enhance efficiency.

Constitutional and Legal Provisions

• The original Constitution did not have provisions related to tribunals.
• The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Part XIV-A, titled “Tribunals,” which includes:
  • Article 323A – Grants Parliament the authority to establish administrative tribunals for resolving disputes related to recruitment and service conditions of individuals in the Central and state governments, local bodies, public corporations, and other public authorities.
  • Article 323B – Empowers both Parliament and state legislatures to create tribunals for various matters, including industrial and labor disputes, foreign exchange, land reforms, elections, rent and tenancy rights, and more.
• Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted to implement Article 323A, enabling the establishment of:
  • Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – Handles disputes of central government employees.
  • State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) – Addresses disputes of state government employees.

Landmark Judgments Related to Tribunals

• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) – Recognized tribunals as substitutes for High Courts and upheld their constitutional validity.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) – Declared that tribunals cannot replace High Courts and must remain subject to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227.
• Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014) – Stipulated that administrative support for all tribunals should be under the Ministry of Law and Justice.
• Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited & Others (2019) – Emphasized the need for a judicial impact assessment when amalgamating tribunals.
• Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2020) – Recommended establishing a National Tribunals Commission to oversee appointments, functioning, and administration of tribunals.
• Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) – Struck down provisions in the Tribunal Reforms Act that undermined judicial independence.

Key Developments in the Indian Tribunal System

• Pre-Independence Era (Before 1947): The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was India’s first tribunal, established to expedite tax dispute resolution and reduce court workload.

• Post-Independence Era (1947–1980):

• • 1950 – Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act established an appellate tribunal for industrial disputes.
  • 1969 – The First Administrative Reforms Commission recommended Civil Services Tribunals at national and state levels for service-related disputes.
  • 1974 – The Sixth Law Commission proposed high-powered tribunals to reduce High Court case backlogs.
  • 1976 – The Swaran Singh Committee suggested:

• Administrative Tribunals for service-related cases at national and state levels.
• An All-India Appellate Tribunal for labor disputes.
• Sector-specific tribunals for revenue, land reforms, and essential commodities.
• Supreme Court oversight for tribunal decisions.

• Golden Era of Tribunalization (1980–2000): Establishment of several tribunals, including:

• • • Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – For administrative matters.
    • Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) – For financial sector disputes.
    • Film Certification Appellate Tribunal – For film certification disputes.
    • Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) – For tariff-related cases.

• 2000–2016: Expansion of Tribunals:

• • 2000 – Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) was established to handle disputes between banks and borrowers.
  • 2002 – Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) were introduced to regulate fair competition.
  • 2010 – National Green Tribunal (NGT) was formed for environmental dispute resolution.
  • 2016 – National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) & National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) were set up for corporate and insolvency matters.
• 2017: Merger of COMPAT with NCLAT:

• The Finance Act, 2017 reduced the number of tribunals from 26 to 19 to streamline efficiency.
• It empowered the central government to define qualifications, appointments, and service conditions for tribunal members.

• Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021: The Act aimed to streamline the tribunal system by abolishing nine tribunals and transferring their functions to existing judicial bodies, mainly High Courts.

Significance of Tribunals

• Reducing Court Burden: By handling specialized cases, tribunals significantly reduce litigation in higher courts. For example, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has disposed of over 7.5 lakh cases since its inception in 1985, easing the workload of High Courts in service-related matters. Similarly, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has reduced military service-related disputes in civil courts.
• Economic Governance: Tribunals play a critical role in ensuring financial stability and economic reforms. For example:
  • National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): Under the IBC, 2016, creditors have recovered approximately Rs 3.55 lakh crore from 1,068 resolved cases as of September 2024.
  • Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT): Established to expedite loan recoveries, DRTs handled cases involving non-performing assets (NPAs) worth Rs 12.25 lakh crore in 2023.
• Environmental Protection and Fundamental Rights: Tribunals protect environmental and public rights by addressing critical cases. For example:
  • National Green Tribunal (NGT) played a key role in Vizag Gas Leak (2020), imposing a Rs 50 crore fine on LG Polymers for environmental damage.
  • NGT’s intervention in the Yamuna pollution case led to the Delhi government and civic bodies implementing stricter water treatment measures.
  • In the Aravalli Hills illegal mining case, NGT ordered the Haryana government to halt illegal mining operations to protect biodiversity.
• Access to Justice: Tribunals provide an affordable and accessible platform for dispute resolution, especially benefiting marginalized groups. For example:
  • Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions have facilitated compensation for consumers in cases of defective goods, fraudulent practices, and medical negligence.
  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Tribunals expedite cases related to atrocities against Dalits and Adivasis.
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Tribunals provide an efficient alternative dispute resolution mechanism that is less adversarial. For example:
  • Lok Adalats, functioning under the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), settled over 14 lakh cases in 2023 through conciliation and mediation.
  • Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) streamlined IP-related disputes before being merged into the High Courts in 2021, improving patent and copyright dispute resolution.
• Speedy Justice: Tribunals expedite dispute resolution compared to conventional courts. For example, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions resolve cases within 3–6 months, whereas similar cases in civil courts can take several years. Similarly, the NCLT ensures that insolvency proceedings under the IBC, 2016, are resolved within 330 days, expediting debt recovery.
• Specialized Expertise: Tribunals handle complex technical disputes requiring domain expertise. For example:
  • Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) deals with regulatory disputes in the power sector, improving tariff and licensing efficiency.
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) handles tax-related appeals and resolved over 53,000 cases in 2023, reducing tax litigation delays.
  • National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) adjudicates corporate disputes, including those under the Companies Act and IBC.

Challenges Faced by Tribunals in India

• Vacancies and Infrastructure Issues: Many tribunals lack sufficient members and infrastructure. For example:
  • National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) operated at 50% capacity in 2023, leading to insolvency cases exceeding 25,000 pending cases under the IBC.
  • NGT’s regional benches lack proper staff and resources, reducing their ability to handle environmental cases effectively.
• Judicial Overreach: Frequent interventions by higher courts raise concerns about tribunal autonomy. For example:
  • The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dispute (2020), which overruled the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), raised concerns about the limited authority of tribunals.
  • The Madras Bar Association case (2021) saw the Supreme Court striking down rules that granted excessive control to the executive over tribunal appointments.
• Appointment Issues: Delays and post-retirement appointments raise concerns about tribunal independence. For example:
  • The delay in appointing members to NCLT and NCLAT has led to long waiting periods for corporate cases.
  • The reappointment of retired judges and bureaucrats to tribunal positions raises concerns about potential bias and lack of fresh perspectives.
• Lack of Uniformity: Different tribunals follow inconsistent procedures, creating legal uncertainties. For example:
  • NCLT and DRT follow different timeframes for case disposal, causing confusion in insolvency and debt recovery cases.
  • Labour tribunals and industrial dispute resolution mechanisms vary across states, affecting consistency in judgments.
• Ineffective Implementation: Bureaucratic delays in appointments and administrative inefficiencies hinder tribunal effectiveness. For example:
  • Over 200 tribunal positions remained vacant in 2023, slowing down case disposal.
  • The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, aimed at streamlining appointments, has seen slow execution, keeping key positions unfilled.
• Economic Impact: Pending tribunal cases significantly affect the economy and investor confidence. For example:
  • Unresolved tax disputes worth ₹12 lakh crore are pending before the ITAT and other tax tribunals, affecting revenue collection.
  • IBC cases worth ₹10.5 lakh crore remain unresolved in NCLT, delaying corporate debt resolution and impacting business sentiment.
• Case Backlogs: Many tribunals struggle with a high volume of pending cases, delaying justice. For example:
  • As of 2023, Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) had over 2,15,431 pending cases, with an asset recovery rate of only 9.2% in 2022–23, slowing down the resolution of non-performing assets (NPAs).
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had over 92,000 pending appeals as of January 2024, delaying tax dispute resolution.
• Mergers and Abolitions: The consolidation of tribunals has led to excessive caseloads and loss of specialization. For example:
  • The merger of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in 2017 resulted in overburdened benches, slowing down competition-related dispute resolution.
  • The dissolution of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2021 transferred cases to High Courts, increasing their workload.

Way Forward

• Establish an Independent Tribunal Oversight Body: A Tribunal Commission should oversee appointments, funding, and administration.
• Structured Tribunal Management System: A Central Tribunal Division should be created within the Ministry of Law and Justice for streamlined operations.
• Implement a Double-Shift System: Operating tribunals in two shifts can expedite case disposal without increasing infrastructure costs.
• Strengthen Specialization and Independence: Domain-specific technical panels should be appointed instead of retired bureaucrats.
• Digital Transformation of Tribunals: An e-Tribunals initiative should be launched for real-time case tracking and online dispute resolution.
• Minimize Executive Control: Bureaucratic control over tribunal functioning should be reduced as per the Rojer Mathew (2019) case.
• Enhance Judicial Autonomy: Tribunals should operate with minimal interference from higher courts, as emphasized in the L. Chandra Kumar (1997) case.