Mentors Comments:
- In the 1st part of the main body, define a tribunal, with examples.
- Mention their constitutional role and validity
- Explain how tribunals curtail jurisdiction of courts.
- End the answer with a balanced way forward and conclusion.
- https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/devaluing-high-courts/article19944799.ece
Answer:
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down in entirety Rules framed by the government under the Finance Act of 2017 to alter the appointments to 19 key judicial tribunals, including the Central Administrative Tribunal.
What are Tribunals?
Tribunals are quasi-judicial duties created by the 42nd Amendment Act which added Articles 323A(Administrative Tribunals) and 323B(Tribunals of other matter).
Constitutional Validity of Tribunals
The Supreme Court in landmark L. Chandra Kumar case (1997) held that the Tribunals constituted either under Article 323A or under Article 323B of the Constitution, possess constitutional validity.
How do the Tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts?
- Being a quasi-judicial body Tribunals go against the Doctrine of Separation of Powers and allows dilution of judicial mechanism – the exclusive arena of ordinary courts.
- The Supreme Court (SC) in Chandra Kumar case (1997) held that the power of the High Court (HC) under Article 226 and 227 to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. However, decisions of some of the tribunals, like National Green Tribunal continue to be taken on appeal only before the SC bypassing the HC as Court of Appeal, depriving them of their power of judicial review.
- Conferring a direct right of appeal to the SC from tribunals has changed the SC from a constitutional court to a mere appellate court and has also resulted in a backlog of cases.
Competency of Tribunals
Tribunals like NGT, NCLAT, CAT have emerged as efficient institutions of rendering justice due to benefits such as:
- Flexibility of procedure – as rigid procedures and evidence ordeals of courts are not followed, rather it goes by the principle of natural justice.
- Provide efficiency in dispensing justice due to cost and time effectiveness.
- Unburdening of judiciary– They have helped in significantly reducing the burden of the judiciary, though appeals can be made there.
- Specialisation through expert involvement – saves time and increases effectiveness.
However, Tribunals are often criticized for issues such as:
- Appeal: Administrative tribunals were originally set up to provide specialized justice delivery and to reduce the burden of caseloads on regular courts. However, appeals from tribunals have inevitably managed to enter the mainstream judicial system.
- High Pendency: Many tribunals also do not have adequate infrastructure to work smoothly and perform the functions originally envisioned leading to high pendency rates thus proving unfruitful to deliver quick justice.
- Appointments: Appointments to tribunals are usually under the control of the executive.
- Functioning: There is a lack of information available on the functioning of tribunals. Websites are routinely non-existent, unresponsive or not updated.
- Accessibility is low due to scant geographic availability therefore justice becomes expensive and difficult.
Despite such challenges, tribunals are great resources in rendering justice in government, reducing conflicts and disputes related to public officials who are agents of good governance.
They can be reformed through processes such as:
- Qualifications: In Union of India vs. R. Gandhi (2010), the Supreme Court said that when the existing jurisdiction of a court is transferred to a tribunal, its members should be persons of a rank, capacity and status as nearly as possible equal to the rank, status and capacity of the court.
- Independence: The administrative support for all Tribunals should be from the Ministry of Law & Justice. Neither the Tribunals nor its members shall seek or be provided with facilities from the respective sponsoring or parent Ministries or concerned Department.
- Accessibility: Tribunals must have benches in different parts so as to ensure that they are accessible.
- Appointments to members: should be done by an impartial and independent selection committee.
Given their benefits, tribunals should be revamped keeping in mind the 272nd Law Commission report for the restructuring of tribunals and the ruling of SC in Chandra Kumar Case and bringing tribunals under independent agency. Hence, tribunals are meant to supplement ordinary courts and cannot supplant them.
Payment ID
MOJO9c07A00N41102924
Break your intro. It is lengthy.
Just introduce the concept of tribunals with the relevant articles in the constitution.
Do not discuss their composition or features in the intro.
That should be done in the 1st part of the main body.
That will make your structure a lot better.
Therefore keep the 1st statement of your intro as it is and remove the next all parts from the intro and shift them to another subheading in the 1st part “Features of Tribunals.” After the 1st statement of the intro, add a statement on the main demand of the question like: “In recent years, there have been incidents where tribunals have overreached their authorities and have affected the ordinary courts.” That will be a lot better intro and a relevant one.
Secondly, shift the discussion on the “Roles and Constitutional Validity of Tribunals” in the 1st part of the answer, after you have discussed the salient features. That is a better structure of the answer. After this discuss how tribunals affect the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
The discussion on the main demand of the question lacks depth and is general in nature.
Give specific examples like recent events where tribunals exceeded their jurisdictions and trampled on the role of ordinary courts.
Points number 1, 3 and 4 in the way forward are quite general and not suited to the demand of the question. Reason being, they are discussing issues which are not related to the tribunal exceeding their jurisdiction.
We will upload the model answer real soon. Take cue for the talking points in the answer.
The language is quite good.
Please review.
Payment id- MOJO9a05700D19953140
@Shambhavi we are not able to open the PDF. It is continuously showing errors.
I have uploaded again. Please check. Thank you. I found it a bit difficult to attempt this question. How should I go about such a question and what points should be covered?
@Parth Verma
*not checked* @Parth Verma
Whenever you have any issue regarding how to approach the question, read the mentors comments. It gives you the structure of the answer as well as direction that your content should take.
Regarding this answer, your content is solid and well explained.
The overall structure of the answer is lucid and according to the demand of the question.
You have covered all the necessary arguments in your main body.
The only issue is with the way forward.
They are passed on as the conclusion. You should keep your way forward and conclusion separate.
Regarding the talking points of the way forward, read the model answer.
The language is perfect and explanation is short and crisp.
How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India. (15 Marks)
Tribunals have been established in India to provide speedy and specialized justice to people in specific areas. They have been created to take the burden off the regular courts and to make the justice system more efficient. However, there is a view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. In this essay, we will analyze this view and discuss the constitutional validity and competency of tribunals in India.
On the one hand, it can be argued that tribunals do curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The powers of tribunals are defined by their specific statutes, and these statutes limit the scope of their jurisdiction. This means that in certain areas, the jurisdiction of the regular courts is curtailed. For example, the National Green Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over environmental matters, and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes related to intellectual property rights. This can be seen as a limitation on the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
On the other hand, it can be argued that tribunals do not curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. In fact, tribunals have been created to reduce the burden on ordinary courts and to provide specialized justice. By taking on certain areas of jurisdiction, tribunals allow the regular courts to focus on other areas of law. Moreover, the right to judicial review is available against the decisions of tribunals, which ensures that the jurisdiction of ordinary courts is not curtailed.
Moving on to the constitutional validity and competency of tribunals in India, it is important to note that tribunals are not expressly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. However, Article 323-A and Article 323-B were inserted into the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, to provide for the establishment of tribunals for specific purposes. Article 323-A provides for the establishment of administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes related to recruitment and conditions of service of public servants, while Article 323-B provides for the establishment of tribunals for other specific purposes.
The Supreme Court has held that the establishment of tribunals is constitutional, but it has also emphasized that the constitutional validity of tribunals depends on certain conditions. The first condition is that tribunals should not completely replace the regular courts, and they should be supplementary to the regular courts. The second condition is that the jurisdiction of tribunals should not be arbitrary or uncontrolled, and it should be subject to judicial review.
In conclusion, while it can be argued that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, they also have the potential to reduce the burden on ordinary courts and provide specialized justice. The constitutional validity of tribunals has been upheld by the Supreme Court, but it is subject to certain conditions. Therefore, it is important to strike a balance between the jurisdiction of tribunals and ordinary courts to ensure that justice is efficiently and effectively delivered to the people.