Why In The News?

Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, saying they gave government excessive control over tribunal appointments, functioning and salaries, undermining independence.

1) About the Supreme Court Judgement on the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021:

• Striking Down Provisions: The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 that gave the Union government dominant control over appointments, functioning, and salaries of tribunal chairpersons and members.
• Need for Independence: The Court held that Parliament must structure the tribunal system to ensure independence, impartiality, and effective adjudication as constitutional requirements.
• Violation of Constitutional Principles: Laws that enable executive control, curtail tenure, or weaken autonomy violate foundational constitutional values.
• National Tribunal Commission: The Bench directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months to ensure independence and transparency.
• Repackaged Ordinance: The 2021 Act was a “repackaged version” of the earlier ordinance struck down in July 2021.
• Ignoring Defects: Parliament had ignored the defects pointed out earlier by the Supreme Court, transferring the same provisions into the 2021 Act with minor changes.
• Rejection of Parliament’s Argument: The Court dismissed the claim that Parliament has discretion to ignore Supreme Court decisions.
• Judicial Review as a Basic Feature: The Court insisted that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and Parliament cannot brush aside the supremacy of the Constitution.

2) Power of Judicial Review:

• Meaning: Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions of public authorities.
• Process Review: It reviews how a decision was made, not the correctness of the decision itself.
• Procedure Established by Law: A law is valid only if enacted following the proper legislative procedure.
• Due Process of Law: Ensures that laws are fair and just; India follows Procedure Established by Law.
• Scope: Extends to reviewing actions of the legislature, executive, and administrative bodies.
• Functions: Helps legitimize government action and protects the Constitution from undue encroachment.
• Basic Structure: Judicial review forms part of the basic structure doctrine (Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain, 1975).
• Judicial Functions: Includes interpretational and observer roles of the judiciary.
• PILs and Suo Moto: Courts can intervene through Public Interest Litigation and suo moto cases.
• Types:
  • Review of Legislative Actions: Ensures laws comply with the Constitution.
  • Review of Administrative Actions: Enforces constitutional discipline on administrative bodies.
  • Review of Judicial Decisions: Allows correction of prior judicial decisions.
• Importance: Ensures supremacy of the Constitution, prevents misuse of power, protects rights, maintains federal balance, and upholds judicial independence.
• Problems: May limit government functioning, create overreach, lead to rigidity, risk judicial bias, and diminish public faith through repeated interventions.
• Indian Context: India follows separation of functions, not strict separation of powers, but has checks and balances empowering courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

3) Tribunals:

• Nature: Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies aimed at reducing caseloads and providing technical expertise.
• Constitutional Basis: Articles 323A and 323B added via the 42nd Amendment (1976) empower creation of tribunals.
• Article 323A: Enables Parliament to form administrative tribunals for service matters.
• Article 323B: Allows Parliament and state legislatures to create tribunals on subjects like taxation and land reforms.
• 2010 SC Clarification: Subjects under Article 323B are not exclusive—legislatures may create tribunals for any subject in the Seventh Schedule.
• Composition: Tribunals include judicial and technical members.
• Jurisdiction: Defined, subject-specific jurisdiction; some have appellate powers.
• Appeals: Generally lie with High Courts, though some go directly to the Supreme Court.
• Chandra Kumar Judgment (1997): Appeals from tribunals must reach a division bench of High Courts.
• Current Position: Tribunals may function as substitutes for High Courts or remain subordinate.

Significance of Tribunals:

• Specialization:
  • Ensures cases are handled by individuals with deep legal and technical expertise.
• Speedy Resolution:
  • Enables timely resolution in crucial matters like tax, service disputes, and environmental issues.
• Reduced Case Load:
  • Helps ease the burden on regular courts and reduces judicial backlog.
• Accessibility:
  • Tribunals often have geographically dispersed benches, improving access for litigants.
• Efficiency in Service Matters:
  • Bodies like CAT expedite government service-related disputes.

Concerns with Tribunals:

• Independence Issues:
  • Government-controlled appointments raise concerns about executive influence.
  • In 2019, the Supreme Court warned that lack of judicial dominance violates the separation of powers.
• Pendency of Cases:
  • Example: Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had 18,829 pending cases in 2021.
• Human Resource Constraints:
  • Lack of staffing contributes to rising pendency.
• Tenure Problems:
  • Short tenure and reappointment provisions increase executive control.
• Non-Uniform Procedures:
  • Wide variations cause inconsistency and confusion for litigants.
• Overlapping Jurisdictions:
  • Leads to conflicts between courts and tribunals.
• Technical Member Issues:
  • Some technical members lack legal qualifications.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now