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.

Introduction

Tribunals — enabled by Articles 323A and 323B, inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976) on the Swaran Singh Committee's recommendation — promise specialised, speedy and affordable adjudication in service, tax, company and environmental matters.

Do Tribunals Curtail Ordinary Courts?

• Partly yes: statutes transfer jurisdiction wholesale — CAT for service disputes, NCLT for company law, NGT for environment — and several laws provided direct appeals to the Supreme Court, bypassing High Courts.
• Article 323A(2)(d) even authorised exclusion of High Court jurisdiction, and S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987) initially accepted tribunals as substitutes for High Courts.
• The balance was restored in L. Chandra Kumar (1997): judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure, and tribunal decisions remain subject to scrutiny by a High Court Division Bench. Tribunals therefore supplement, not supplant, ordinary courts.

Constitutional Validity and Competency

• Validity is settled but conditional on independence: the Madras Bar Association line of cases (2010, 2015) required judge-dominated selection committees; Rojer Mathew (2019) struck down tribunal rules framed under the Finance Act, 2017 for excessive executive control; Madras Bar Association (2021) invalidated restrictive tenure and age conditions even as the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished nine appellate tribunals.
• Competency is eroded in practice by chronic vacancies, dependence on parent ministries — often the main litigant — for staff and funds, few benches outside metro cities — which raises litigation costs for ordinary citizens — and appointments that dilute judicial expertise.

Conclusion

Tribunals are constitutionally valid instruments of access to justice so long as judicial review survives and appointments stay independent. A National Tribunals Commission with autonomous funding and transparent selection — an idea the Supreme Court has repeatedly urged — would let tribunals decongest the courts without diminishing them.