Central Idea

The Supreme Court clarified that tribunals, bound by their governing legislations, cannot compel the government to formulate policy.
It emphasized the separation of powers, stating that policy-making is outside the judiciary’s domain, including quasi-judicial bodies like tribunals.

What are Tribunals?

	Details
Nature	Judicial or quasi-judicial institutions established by law
Purpose	Provide faster adjudication compared to traditional courts Offer expertise on specific subject matters
Functions	Adjudicating disputes Determining rights between parties Making administrative decisions Reviewing existing administrative decisions
Constitutional Recognition	42nd Amendment Act, 1976 introduced Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution
Article 323A	Empowers Parliament to constitute administrative Tribunals for public service matters
Article 323B	Allows Parliament or state legislatures to constitute tribunals for specific subjects like taxation, land reforms
Composition	Comprises expert (technical) members and judicial members
Expert Members	Selected from various fields, including central government departments
Judicial Members	Persons with a judicial background, such as High Court judges or eligible lawyers
Supreme Court’s Stance	Technical members not required if tribunal’s aim is expeditious disposal of matters

Specific Case Reviewed: The Bench addressed whether the AFT could direct the government to create a policy for appointing the Judge Advocate General (Air).
General Observation: It has been consistently observed that courts cannot mandate the government to enact legislation or develop a policy.

Justice Karol’s Observations: Justice Sanjay Karol noted that the AFT, with powers akin to a civil court, lacks the authority of the Supreme Court or High Courts.
High Courts’ Limitations: Even High Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot order the government or its departments to establish specific policies.
Government’s Prerogative: The judgment reinforced that policy creation, especially concerning defense personnel services or their regularization, is exclusively the government’s responsibility.

Tribunals’ Restricted Powers: Tribunals must operate within the confines of their governing legislation and lack the jurisdiction to influence policy formation.
Judiciary’s Role in Policy Matters: The judgment highlights the judiciary’s limited role in policy-making, even in cases where fundamental rights might be at stake.
Separation of Powers: This ruling underscores the principle of separation of powers, delineating the distinct functions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Respecting Institutional Boundaries: The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting the boundaries and roles of different government institutions in a democratic setup.
Broader Implications: This decision has significant implications for how tribunals and courts interact with policy-making processes, emphasizing judicial restraint and adherence to the constitutional framework.