Tribunals in India

Content:-

• Definition of Tribunals

• Tribunal Distinguished from Court

• Tribunals under Constitution

• L chandra Kumar v UOI

• Powers of Tribunals

• Review of Working of Tribunals

Tribunals are being established to provide for speedy disposal of cases, and thus reduce the pressure on the Civil Courts. Once such a tribunal is established, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain cases falling within the jurisdiction of tribunals is barred. One of the main reasons favouring their creation is the delay in the proceedings in the High Courts. 

The Supreme Court clarified the object of tribunal by observing that tribunals provide a new fora for cheap and fast track adjudicatory systems and permitting them to function by tearing of the conventional shackles of strict rule of pleadings, strict rule of evidence, tardy trials, endless revision, reviews and appeals, which ultimately, create hurdles  in fast flow of the stream of justice [UOI v Delhi High Court Bar Asscn., JT 2002 (3) SC 131].

Definition of Tribunals in India

The term ‘tribunal’ refers to adjudicatory bodies (quasi-judicial bodies) outside the sphere of ordinary courts. A tribunal, from a functional point of view, is somewhere between a court and the government department exercising adjudicatory power.

A tribunal is invested with judicial powers to adjudicate on question of law or fact affecting the rights of citizens in a judicial mariner e.g. taking of evidence, cross-examination, legal representation, members of a tribunal must be qualified to be judges, it must be required To sit in public, and its constitution and powers must be derived from statute. 

There are three essential requisites of a tribunal:

1.  it must have the trappings of a court;

2. it should be constituted by the State; and

3. it should be invested with the State’s inherent judicial power {Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v Hind Cycles AIR 1963 SC 874)

In Rohtas Industries Ltd. v Rohtas Industries Staff Union (AIR 1976 SC 425) held that an arbitrator under Sec. 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is a tribunal. In recent years, emphasis has shifted from ‘trappings of a court’ to a body being endowed with the inherent judicial power of the State.

Thus, a customs officer adjudicating upon matters under Sec. 167 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 is not a tribunal, but the central board of revenue and the Central Government exercising appellate and revisional jurisdictions under Secs. 190 and 199 of the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963, respectively, are tribunals for the purpose of Art. 136. 

The Election Commission (EC) is held to be a tribunal when it adjudicates upon disputes regarding recognition of political parties or upon the rival claims to a symbol A High Court is held not to be a tribunal within the meaning of Art. 136 when its decision iTm pursuance of its administrative powers. 

The word ‘tribunal’ in Arts. 227 and 136 of the Constitution has been interpreted broadly to include within it all bodies that exercise judicial functions. The Supreme Court interprets the word ‘tribunal’, which appears in Arts. 227 and 136, more liberally to bring within the purview of the Courts certain quasi-judicial bodies that are not, strictly speaking, tribunals, but have certain characteristics of judicial function

Tribunal Distinguished from Court

  Tribunals differ from courts in following respects:

1.  A tribunal has greater freedom in procedural matters than courts, which are Bound by formal procedures.  

2. A tribunal is supposed to develop greater expertise in a specific branch of litigation with which it is"required to deal. 

3. Members of a tribunal are not necessarily drawn from the judiciary; A tribunal may consist of one or more members, andTts membership may or may not include persons with judicial experience. 

4. A tribunal has no power to punish for contempt of Court, and it may not be considered as a court for the purpose of prosecution for false evidence unless  the statute under which it is set up expressly says. So

5. Decisions of a tribunal may be subject to appeal to higher tribunal or a court, or they may be final and [immune from  challenge in any court.     

Tribunals must also be distinguished from ‘special courts.’ Technically, the latter are courts and, bearing a few exceptions, bound by formal procedures of a court, and their decisions are subject to appeal to a higher court.

Special courts are appointed under various statutes, mainly with a view to expediting disposal of certain types of matters.

Unlike Courts, a tribunal does not have any inherent power. It has only such powers as are explicitly mentioned in the statute that creates it.

Courts seem to be reluctant to admit that a tribunal is a part of the judiciary. However, they admit that it performs an important function in the delivery of justice.

Tribunals under Constitution of India

The concept of tribunals was incorporated into the Indian Constitution through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which added Part XIV-A, comprising Articles 323A and 323B.

• Article 323A: Provides for the establishment of administrative tribunals for the adjudication of disputes related to the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts under the Union and the states.

• Article 323B: Empowers the Parliament and state legislatures to establish tribunals for matters such as taxation, foreign exchange, industrial and labor disputes, land reforms, and elections to the Parliament and state legislatures, among others.

Article 226 and Tribunal

 In Minerva Mills v UOI (AIR 1980 SC 1789), it was held that it is possible to set up an alternative institution in place of the High Court for providing judicial review for relieving the High Court of workload and quick settlement of cases. In this way, barring the jurisdiction of the High Court for providing judicial review did not invalidate the Act (S.P. Sampath Kumar v UOI AIR 1987 SC 386). 

However, the High Court exercises the power of judicial superintendence under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution over the Administrative Tribunals in order to judicially review the decisions of the tribunals (Z. Chandra Kumar v UOI AIR 1997 SC 1125). But that does not make a tribunal subordinate to the High Court [A. Srinivasa Rao v Government ofA.P., 2002 (4) R.S.J. 747 (DB) (A.P.

The Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in S.P. Sampath Kumar v Union of India, where the Court had held that a tribunal could be a substitute for a High Court. In L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India, Ahmadi CJ, speaking for the unanimous Court, held that:

Administrative tribunals under Art. 323-A could examine the constitutional validity of various statutes or rules. There would be one exception to this rule: the administrative tribunals would not be competent to examine the validity of the statute under which they are created. 

In such cases, the appropriate High Court would have to be approached directly. Barring cases where the constitutionality of the parent Act is challenged , all regarding services must be  raised only before an administrative tribunal, and only writ appeals could go to a Division Bench of a High Court. From a decision of a High Court’s Division Bench, an appeal could be preferred under Art. 136 of the [ Constitution to the Supreme Court;

Powers of Tribunals in India

Almost all tribunals have the powers of a civil court, such as power to summon witnesses, examine them on oath, compel for production of documents, or issue commissions for examining witnesses or documents. Where substantive power is conferred upon a tribunal, all incidental and ancillary powers necessary for effectively exercising substantive powers have to be inferred.

For discharging its functions under the Consumer Protection Act, the tribunal has the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the CPC, while trying a suit in connection with following matters, namely:

1.  summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

2.  requiring the discovery and production of documents

3. receiving evidence on affidavits;

4. subject to the provisions of Secs. 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; 

5. issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or, documents;

6. dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte',

7. setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte',

8. reviewing its decision; and 

9. any other matter, which may be prescribed by the Central Government. 

Generally, proceedings of most tribunals are judicial proceedings for the purpose of Secs. 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Presiding officers or members of the tribunals are public servants within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the IPC. Members of the tribunals are protected from civil and criminal prosecution in respect of acts done in good faith.

Review of Working of Tribunals

The main features of tribunal system in India are as follows: 

1. There is no uniformity in the mode of appointment or qualifications of members of tribunals; there is no uniformity in the procedures to be followed by tribunals.

2. Although some Acts do provide for appellate administrative tribunals, such provisions are rare. Wherever tribunals need to be given to the power of final decision-making, such finality should be vested in an appellate tribunal.

3. There is no uniformity in the provisions for appeals to courts. In England, Frank’s Committee recommended that appeals to courts should be provided on questions of law. In cases where there is no appellate tribunal, appeal to the High Court on questions of law must be provided. 

Several tribunals are functioning in the country. Not all of them, however, have inspired confidence in the public mind. The reasons are not far to seek. The foremost is the lack of competence, objectivity and judicial approach. 

The next is their constitution, the power and method of appointment of personnel thereto, the inferior status and the causal method of working. 

The last is their actual composition; men of calibre are not willing to be appointed as presiding officers in view of the uncertainty of tenure, unsatisfactory conditions of service, executive subordination in matters of administration and political interference in judicial functioning. For these and other reasons, the quality of justice is stated to have suffered.

 A more conscious effort must be made to systematise the working of tribunals, so that the real gains of tribunalisation become available. Tribunalisation has grown rather sporadically in India. However, now that the tribunals have come to stay, all efforts to systematise their patterns and procedures ought to be made. 

A uniform statute like the Tribunals and Enquiries Act, 1971 in England should be passed so that uniformity could be brought about in procedures, compositions, and review/appeal of decisions of tribunals. 

A body like the council on tribunals - which could, from time to time, review the working of administrative tribunals and bring about procedural as well as institutional reforms in them - has now become extremely necessary. Thus, an independent nodal agency was set up by the government to oversee the work of tribunals.