Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.
Subtopic: Judiciary · administrative tribunals & tribunal reforms
How to structure your answer
Detailed model answer
198 words · target 150 words · 9 min
Administrative tribunals (Articles 323A/323B, inserted by the 42nd Amendment on the Swaran Singh Committee's recommendation) offer specialized, speedy and inexpensive adjudication, free of the Civil Procedure Code's rigour — vital when regular courts carry a backlog of over five crore cases. L. Chandra Kumar (1997) kept their decisions subject to High Court review under Articles 226/227, so tribunals supplement rather than supplant courts.
Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 — impact
- Abolished nine appellate bodies — including the IPAB, Film Certification Appellate Tribunal and Airports Appellate Tribunal — transferring functions mainly to High Courts: rationalization reduced multiplicity but added to already strained HC dockets.
- Fixed a four-year tenure, minimum age of 50 and Centre-dominated search-cum-selection terms — reviving provisions the Supreme Court had struck down in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021), and deepening judicial-independence concerns over executive control of tribunals where the government is the largest litigant.
- Persistent vacancies in the NCLT, DRTs and other tribunals, and the absence of the long-recommended National Tribunals Commission (Rojer Mathew, 2019), continue to blunt the efficiency rationale.
Tribunals remain necessary for expert, expeditious justice, but the 2021 reforms centralized executive control more than they built capacity. An independent National Tribunals Commission for appointments, funding and administration would secure both efficiency and independence.
What an examiner expects to see
- Constitutional basis: Articles 323A (administrative tribunals) and 323B (other matters), added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976 on the Swaran Singh Committee's recommendation.
- Need vs courts: subject expertise, procedural flexibility (not bound by CPC/Evidence Act), speed and low cost, and decongestion of a 5-crore-plus case backlog.
- L. Chandra Kumar (1997): tribunal decisions are subject to High Court review under Articles 226/227 — judicial review is basic structure; tribunals supplement courts.
- Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021: abolished nine appellate tribunals (IPAB, FCAT, Airports Appellate Tribunal, etc.) and shifted their work chiefly to High Courts.
- Independence concern: four-year tenure, minimum age 50 and Centre-controlled selection terms re-enacted what Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) had struck down.
- Operational reality: chronic vacancies (NCLT, DRTs), no National Tribunals Commission despite Rojer Mathew (2019) and repeated SC prodding — efficiency gains remain unrealized.
- Balanced verdict: rationalization was defensible, but executive dominance over tribunal service conditions undermines the very independence adjudication requires.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) — tenure and age provisions struck down
- Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019) — call for a National Tribunals Commission
- Abolition of IPAB (2021) shifting IP appeals to High Courts
- NCLT/NCLAT vacancy-driven delays in insolvency resolution beyond IBC timelines