Q.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?

Body

graph TD
    Tribunals["Exploring the Dimensions of Indian Tribunals"] --> Est["Established Under Article 323-A & 323-B"]
    Tribunals --> QJ["Quasi-Judicial Nature"]
    Tribunals --> JS["Judicial Scrutiny Ensured"]
    Tribunals --> AC["Appointment & Composition Issues"]
    Tribunals --> CV["Constitutional Validity and Competency of Tribunals"]

Do Tribunals Curtail the Jurisdiction of Ordinary Courts?

• Parallel Adjudication System: Tribunals often divest ordinary civil courts of their jurisdiction over specific matters. For example, the establishment of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) or the National Green Tribunal (NGT) means that cases which would have otherwise been heard by ordinary civil courts or High Courts are now routed through these specialized bodies.
• Specialization vs. General Jurisdiction: While tribunals bring technical expertise to complex matters (e.g., intellectual property, environment, taxation), this specialization can lead to a fragmentation of the judicial system, potentially reducing the role of generalist ordinary courts and leading to inconsistent legal interpretations.
• The Supreme Court's Balancing Intervention: To prevent the complete exclusion of ordinary courts, the Supreme Court has actively intervened. In the landmark L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) case, the Court held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts (under Article 226/227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 32) is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, decisions of tribunals must be subject to scrutiny by a division bench of the respective High Court, ensuring that the jurisdiction of ordinary superior courts is not entirely bypassed.
• Jurisdictional Overlaps: In some instances, the boundaries between tribunals and civil courts remain blurred, leading to jurisdictional conflicts and procedural delays (e.g., overlaps between Consumer Forums and civil courts in consumer disputes).

Constitutional Validity and Competency of Tribunals

• Constitutional Basis: The constitutional validity of tribunals is derived from Articles 323A (Administrative Tribunals) and 323B (Tribunals for other matters). These articles allow Parliament and state legislatures to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136 with respect to the disputes falling under these tribunals.
• Judicial Standards of Competency: The judiciary has laid down strict guidelines to ensure that tribunals are competent and independent:
  • L. Chandra Kumar Case (1997): Reaffirmed that tribunal decisions are subject to High Court review under Articles 226 and 227.
  • Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014): The Supreme Court struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act, ruling that the transfer of judicial functions from High Courts to tribunals is unconstitutional if the tribunals do not possess the same level of independence, security of tenure, and judicial competence as the courts they replace.
• Independence and Appointments: A major concern regarding the competency of tribunals is executive interference in appointments and terms of service. In cases like Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019), the Supreme Court scrutinized the rules governing tribunal appointments, emphasizing that the executive cannot have a dominant say in appointing members to bodies that adjudicate disputes involving the government itself.
• Supervisory Jurisdiction: Under Article 227, High Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within their territorial limits, ensuring that tribunals operate within their legal boundaries and do not abuse their powers.
• Legislative Reforms: The enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, which abolished several underperforming tribunals and restructured others, highlights the ongoing effort to balance administrative efficiency with judicial independence, though it has also faced scrutiny regarding its impact on the independence of the judiciary.