Central Idea
- The Supreme Court clarified that tribunals, bound by their governing legislations, cannot compel the government to formulate policy.
- It emphasized the separation of powers, stating that policy-making is outside the judiciary’s domain, including quasi-judicial bodies like tribunals.
What are Tribunals?
| Details | |
| Nature | Judicial or quasi-judicial institutions established by law |
| Purpose | Provide faster adjudication compared to traditional courts
Offer expertise on specific subject matters |
| Functions | Adjudicating disputes
Determining rights between parties Making administrative decisions Reviewing existing administrative decisions |
| Constitutional Recognition | 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 introduced Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution |
| Article 323A | Empowers Parliament to constitute administrative Tribunals for public service matters |
| Article 323B | Allows Parliament or state legislatures to constitute tribunals for specific subjects like taxation, land reforms |
| Composition | Comprises expert (technical) members and judicial members |
| Expert Members | Selected from various fields, including central government departments |
| Judicial Members | Persons with a judicial background, such as High Court judges or eligible lawyers |
| Supreme Court’s Stance | Technical members not required if tribunal’s aim is expeditious disposal of matters |
Case in Focus: Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and Policy Direction
- Specific Case Reviewed: The Bench addressed whether the AFT could direct the government to create a policy for appointing the Judge Advocate General (Air).
- General Observation: It has been consistently observed that courts cannot mandate the government to enact legislation or develop a policy.
Judicial Analysis and Reasoning
- Justice Karol’s Observations: Justice Sanjay Karol noted that the AFT, with powers akin to a civil court, lacks the authority of the Supreme Court or High Courts.
- High Courts’ Limitations: Even High Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot order the government or its departments to establish specific policies.
- Government’s Prerogative: The judgment reinforced that policy creation, especially concerning defense personnel services or their regularization, is exclusively the government’s responsibility.
Implications of the Judgment
- Tribunals’ Restricted Powers: Tribunals must operate within the confines of their governing legislation and lack the jurisdiction to influence policy formation.
- Judiciary’s Role in Policy Matters: The judgment highlights the judiciary’s limited role in policy-making, even in cases where fundamental rights might be at stake.
- Separation of Powers: This ruling underscores the principle of separation of powers, delineating the distinct functions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Conclusion
- Respecting Institutional Boundaries: The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting the boundaries and roles of different government institutions in a democratic setup.
- Broader Implications: This decision has significant implications for how tribunals and courts interact with policy-making processes, emphasizing judicial restraint and adherence to the constitutional framework.
