The role of tribunals is an administrative body established for the purpose of discharging quasi-judicial duties. Such tribunals are primarily responsible for hearing and adjudicating specific cases in which the rights of individuals or organizations have been infringed by government agencies or private parties. Other countries outside of India have a large number of tribunals that are responsible for the protection and enforcement of specific laws. They are generally divided up into categories based either on their jurisdiction, the authority responsible for creating them, or the subject matter under which they operate.
There are two important constitutional provisions related to tribunals in India: 1. The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1978; and 2. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Article 323-A of the constitution empowers parliament to create administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes regarding recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services at Union, State and local level or with any other authority within India. The Administrative Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies which interpret laws in favor of legal disputes and grievances of individuals against government.
The Constitution of India provides for the establishment of tribunals for adjudication of disputes relating to various matters. Article 323-B empowers parliament or state legislatures to set up tribunals for other matters i.e. taxation, foreign exchange, import and export, Industrial and labour, Land reforms, Ceiling on urban property, Elections to Parliament and state legislatures, Rent and tenancy right.
While Article 323-A of the Constitution of India anticipates the establishment of tribunals for public service matters only, Article 323-B envisages the establishment of tribunals for certain other matters. Apparently, the authority to establish tribunals in these two cases is not comparable under Article 323. It needs treaty or statutory support as the case may be. The structure given to these two provisions in Articles 323 A and B respectively was due to various Constitutional conventions prevailing at that time.
Quick resolution: The main role of tribunals is to provide quick and inexpensive justice. Tribunals are set up to accelerate the process of dispensing justice. Tribunals are required in cases where there is a volume of litigation, which cannot be handled by ordinary courts. Tribunals reduce the workload of regular courts and give wider access to justice for the people. They are established for a specific purpose and have a specialized content.
Accessibility: The tribunals in India are the ordinary courts to which common people can make their appeals. The ordinary courts comprise of District Courts, High Courts and Supreme Courts. Tribunals take lesser time rather than the ordinary court in order to resolve disputes. Tribunals solve cases by following simpler procedures instead of the complicated procedures of ordinary courts. As a result, administrative tribunals in India are cheaper than the ordinary courts.
Quality Justice: Tribunals are independent of the government, unlike conventional courts. Tribunals can take prompt decisions and even the appeals which would ordinarily have been with the conventional courts. Tribunals work efficiently and quickly in comparison to conventional courts. Even though tribunals are not as complex or as expensive as conventional courts, they give quality justice. The creation of new tribunals would depend on whether they add value to our existing judicial system or weaken it.
Reduced burden of Courts: The modern system of administrative adjudication has reduced the burden of cases on the ordinary courts of the country. This has been made possible by the setting up of a number of tribunals and additional authorities to handle the disputes arising out of different statutes containing provisions for their constitution.
Flexibility: The introduction of tribunals has considerably facilitated the timely adjudication and disposal of cases. The extraordinary concept of jurisdiction has been introduced in the tribunal proceedings which in turn has simplified the process of decision-making. Tribunals have been given enormous power in adjudicating disputes and thus there is no room for any kind of intervention from the ordinary courts.
The growth of tribunals in India has been a rather haphazard affair. They have grown throughout the years, with no overarching plan and as a result, there is an impression in the minds of people that all these tribunals are very different from each other. While this may not turn out to be entirely true when it comes to functioning, there is no denying that they are administered by different departments with different sets of rules and procedures.
Tribunals are the established mechanism for speedy disposal of a large number of cases, except constitutional cases. In most instances, they are intended to discharge the function of a first appellate forum so that the large number of matters can be disposed of expeditiously and without overwhelming backlog. Tribunals are not known for their speed or efficiency. In fact, they have often been criticised for being unnecessarily slow and inefficient.
Impartiality is the quality of being fair and just to all people involved in a judgement and this quality is essential for the ordinary citizens for any judiciary to be considered free and fair. However, some critics have questioned this impartiality as tribunals acting as extended arm of departments with retired bureaucrats appointed to it with fewer judges have been very common here. The system is immersed in the bureaucratic attitude, which gives the government considerable say in court proceedings. This has come under much criticism from almost all quarters while suggesting reform measures.
The growth of a large number of quasi-judicial tribunals in the last few years, with powers to adjudicate on legal issues and determine the fate of individuals and companies, is having far-reaching effects on our polity. The separation of power - between the legislature, executive and judiciary, built into our constitution to prevent tyranny - has been eroded especially by the executive arm.
Tribunals are established to decide disputes which involve administrative, commercial, fiscal or of an intellectual character. They follow principles of natural justice where the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges the fact. Their hearings are kept informal, and proceedings are conducted in a plenary manner. Due to tribunals not being courts and not being bound by procedure, adjudicators are unable to have a clear understanding of how exactly they should go about adjudicating the case.
The Supreme Court’s observations regarding the indiscriminate creation of tribunals in the country is actually a warning for the government to rethink its strategy. The desire to resolve issues related to administration of justice through alternative dispute resolution methods, such as arbitration and mediation, has resulted in the creation of tribunals. This was resorted to after the failure of the courts to effectively manage legal proceedings and cope with an ever-swelling number of cases.