Tribunal is a specialized, quasi-judicial body established to resolve specific disputes, such as administrative or tax-related issues. It adjudicates disputes, determines rights, and reviews administrative decisions. The number of pending cases in India exceeds 4.5 crore (as per the National Judicial Data Grid, 2024), highlighting the dire need for an efficient system. According to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the Government has merged and rationalized several tribunals, aiming to improve efficiency. Tribunals in India
What are the constitutional and legal provisions related to Tribunals in India?
The original Constitution did not include provisions related to tribunals. However, the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 introduced Part XIV-A, titled “Tribunals,” which consists of two articles:
- Article 323A – Pertains to administrative tribunals.
- Article 323B – Covers tribunals for other specific matters
| Provisions | Description |
| Article 323A | Grants Parliament the power to establish administrative tribunals for resolving disputes related to recruitment and service conditions of individuals employed in the Central and state governments, local bodies, public corporations, and other public authorities |
| Article 323B | Authorizes 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
To implement Article 323A, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, empowering the Central Government to establish:
- Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for central government employees.
- State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) for state government employees.
What are the landmark judgement’s related to tribunals in India?
| 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 act as substitutes for High Courts and must be subject to judicial review under Article 226 and 227. |
| Madras Bar Association v. Union of India 2014 | Administrative support for all tribunals should come under the Ministry of Law and Justice. |
| Rojer Mathew versus South Indian Bank Limited & ors, 2019 | The impact of amalgamation of tribunals should be analysed with judicial impact assessment. |
| Madras Bar Association versus Union of India, 2020 | National Tribunals Commission should be set up to supervise appointments, as well as functioning and administration of tribunals. |
| Madras Bar Association versus Union of India, 2021 | Struck down various provisions in tribunal reforms that undermined judicial independence. |
What are the key developments in the Indian tribunal system?
| Pre-Independence Era (Before 1947) | The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was established as India’s first tribunal to reduce court workload and expedite tax dispute resolution |
| Post-Independence Era (1947–1980) | 1950: Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act provided for an appellate tribunal to handle 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 suggested high-powered tribunals to reduce High Court case backlogs. 1976: The Swaran Singh Committee recommended setting up a. Administrative Tribunals ((both at national level and state level) for service-related cases. b. All-India Appellate Tribunal for labor disputes. c. Sector-specific tribunals for revenue, land reforms, and essential commodities. d. Supreme Court oversight for tribunal decisions. |
| Golden Era of Tribunalization (1980–2000) | Establishment of several tribunals, including: a. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – for administrative matters. b. Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) – for financial sector disputes. c. Film Certification Appellate Tribunal – for film certification disputes. d. Appellate Tribunal for Electricity – for tariff-related cases. |
| 2000–2016: Expansion of Tribunals | 2000: Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) – for resolving disputes between banks and borrowers. 2002: Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) – to regulate fair competition. 2010: National Green Tribunal (NGT) – for environmental disputes. 2016: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) & National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) – for corporate and insolvency matters. |
| 2017- Merger of COMPAT with NCLAT | The Finance Act, 2017 reduced the number of tribunals from 26 to 19 based on functional similarity. It gave the central government authority to define qualifications, appointments, and service conditions for tribunal members. |
| Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 | The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021 aimed to streamline the tribunal system. Nine tribunals were abolished, transferring their functions to existing judicial bodies, mainly High Courts. |
Why are tribunals important, and what is their significance?
1. Speedy Justice: Tribunals are designed to offer faster dispute resolution compared to traditional courts. E.g. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions resolve cases within 3-6 months, NCLT expedited cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, ensuring faster debt recovery.
2. Specialized Expertise: Tribunals were designed to handle complex, sector-specific disputes requiring technical expertise. E.g. Power sector (APTEL), taxation (ITAT), corporate law (NCLAT), copyright (IPAB).
3. Reducing Court Burden: By handling specialized cases, tribunals reduce the workload of high courts and the Supreme Court. E.g. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has significantly reduced litigation burden in service-related disputes.
4. Economic Governance: Tribunals like the NCLT and DRT play a critical role in ensuring economic stability and ease of doing business. E.g. Creditors have recovered approximately Rs 3.55 lakh crore by resolving 1,068 insolvency cases under the IBC, 2016, as of September 2024 since 2016.
5. Environmental Protection & Protecting Fundamental Rights: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has played a pivotal role in environmental protection cases like the Vizag Gas Leak (2020). It is also instrumental in addressing environmental issues, such as the Yamuna pollution case and illegal mining in Aravalli Hills.
6. Access to Justice: Tribunals provide a cost-effective and accessible forum for resolving disputes, especially for marginalized groups.
7. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Tribunals provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, which can be less adversarial and more conducive to finding mutually agreeable solutions.
What are various challeneges faced by Tribunals in India?
1. Case Backlogs Rising: As of 2023, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has over 215,431 pending cases, with an asset recovery rate of just 9.2% in 2022-23, far below the desired efficiency.
2. Mergers and Abolitions Causing Hindrance: The merger of tribunals like COMPAT with NCLAT has led to overburdened benches and loss of specialization.
3. Lower Vacancies and Poor Infrastructure: Tribunals like APTEL face chronic vacancies and lack adequate infrastructure, leading to delays. NCLT operated at 50% capacity in 2023, delaying crucial insolvency resolutions. Many tribunals lack digital case management systems, affecting efficiency.
4. Judicial Overreach: The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) ruling on the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dispute has raised questions about the legal standing of tribunals.
5. Appointment Concerns: The trend of appointing retired judges and bureaucrats raises questions about post-retirement placements and expertise. E.g. The Ministry of Law and Justice controls appointments and budgets which reduces the administrative independence.
6. Lack of Uniformity: Different tribunals follow varying procedures, leading to inconsistency. For instance, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) have different rules for evidence submission.
7. Ineffective Implementation: The appointment process for tribunal members is slow and opaque, leading to prolonged vacancies. E.g. The Law Commission’s 272nd Report (2017) recommended a central nodal agency, but no progress has been made.
8. Economic Impact: Delays in tribunal decisions have significant economic consequences. E.g. unresolved tax disputes worth ₹12 lakh crore are pending before various tribunals, affecting government revenue and investor confidence.
What is the Way Forward?
1. Establish an Independent Tribunal Oversight Body: Inspired by the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), a Tribunal Commission should oversee appointments, funding, and administration. E.g. The Law Commission’s 162nd Report suggested a National Administrative Appellate Tribunal above High Courts—an idea that needs revisiting.
2. Structured Tribunal Management System: A Central Tribunal Division within the Ministry of Law and Justice should be implemented to streamline operations. Case management technology and AI-based analytics should be deployed to track tribunal performance.
3. Implement a Double-Shift System to Expedite Disposal: To clear the backlog, tribunals should operate in two shifts, a proposal discussed in 2011 but never implemented. This would increase case disposals without increasing infrastructure costs.
4. Strengthen the Specialization and Independence of Tribunals: Instead of appointing retired bureaucrats, tribunals must have domain-specific technical panels to ensure subject matter expertise. Reduce judicial interventions by strengthening tribunal autonomy under the Tribunals Reforms Act.
5. Digital Transformation of Tribunals: Fully digitalize tribunal processes through an e-Tribunals initiative, ensuring real-time case tracking. Integrate online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanisms to reduce case inflow into traditional tribunals. E.g. The UK’s HM Courts & Tribunals Service.
6. Minimizing Executive Control: The legislature should reduce bureaucratic control over tribunal functioning, as recommended in Rojer Mathew (2019) case.
7. Enhancing Judicial Autonomy: Ensure tribunals operate with minimal interference from higher courts, as emphasized in the L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India (1997) case.
| Read more– Live mint UPSC Syllabus- GS 2– Quasi-judicial bodies |
Discover more from Free UPSC IAS Preparation Syllabus and Materials For Aspirants
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
