Q12. 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.

Model Answer:

Introduction

Tribunals were established in India to provide a specialised forum for speedy and efficient resolution of disputes. However, concerns have been raised that tribunals, by taking over certain functions traditionally performed by ordinary courts, may curtail judicial power and raise questions about their constitutional validity.

Body

Purpose of Tribunals:

  • Specialised Forums: Tribunals are designed to handle specific disputes, such as tax, administrative, and service matters, that require expertise in a particular area.
  • Speedy Justice: They aim to reduce the burden on regular courts and expedite the justice delivery system, avoiding long delays associated with the traditional judicial process.

Tribunals and Jurisdiction of Ordinary Courts:

  1. Reduction in Court Burden: By handling specialised cases, tribunals reduce the case load on ordinary courts. For instance, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) handles environmental matters, allowing regular courts to focus on other issues.
  2. Overlapping Jurisdiction: Despite this division, tribunals sometimes encroach on the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. For example, industrial tribunals handle labour disputes that could have otherwise been adjudicated by the High Court.
  3. Judicial Review: While tribunals have wide-ranging powers, their decisions are still subject to judicial review by the High Courts and Supreme Court. This ensures that the ordinary courts retain their supervisory role over tribunal decisions.

Constitutional Validity of Tribunals:

  • Article 323A and 323B: The Constitution permits the establishment of tribunals under Articles 323A (Administrative Tribunals) and 323B (Other Tribunals) to deal with matters related to public service and other specialised fields.
  • Supreme Court’s Stance: In L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that while tribunals can function as the first point of adjudication, their decisions must remain subject to judicial review by the High Courts and Supreme Court, thus preserving the supremacy of ordinary courts.
  • Independence of Judiciary: The judiciary has emphasised that tribunals should not undermine the independence of the regular judicial process. Judges of tribunals should have the same independence and protections as regular judges, as laid down in the R. Gandhi vs. Union of India (2010) case.

Competency of Tribunals:

  1. Subject Matter Expertise: Tribunals possess specialised knowledge, enabling them to handle complex cases with greater efficiency. For instance, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deals with intricate tax matters that require specific expertise.
  2. Constitutional Safeguards: To ensure that tribunals do not violate fundamental rights or curtail judicial independence, the judiciary has put in place safeguards, including the requirement for judicial members in tribunals and the preservation of judicial review.

Conclusion

‍While tribunals offer a specialised and efficient means of resolving disputes, they do not curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The constitutional framework ensures that tribunals complement, rather than replace, the judicial system. Judicial oversight and adherence to constitutional safeguards maintain the balance between the two systems.

‍

Instant Mains Evaluation with SuperKalam

✅ Now that you have gone through the model answer, try practicing and writing it in your own words and evaluate it instantly with SuperKalam here - Evaluate Mains Answer instantly

Read more blogs