Tribunals: rationale and the constitutional framework

Detail

1. What a tribunal is and why India uses them

• Tribunal: a special body set up by law to decide one kind of dispute, such as tax, service matters or company law. It works alongside the regular courts.
• Quasi-judicial body: a body that decides disputes the way a court does, but is not a full court.
• It is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or by strict rules of evidence.

• It is bound by natural justice. This means two things: a fair hearing (both sides must be heard) and no bias (no one can judge their own case).

• Why tribunals are set up:

• Expertise. A bench can include technical members, such as tax or administrative experts, who sit with judicial members.
• Speed. Procedure is simpler, so cases should end faster.
• Lower cost and less formality for the person who brings the case.

• Less load on High Courts, which were full of service and tax cases.

• Older than the Constitution: the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1941) was India's first tribunal. It was set up to cut court workload and build tax expertise [2].

• Steps before 1976:
• In 1969, the First Administrative Reforms Commission proposed Civil Services Tribunals at the national and state levels. They would hear cases on dismissal, removal and reduction in rank [2].
• In 1974, the Law Commission proposed a separate high-powered tribunal to cut arrears in the High Courts [2].

2. The risk: "tribunalisation"

• Tribunalisation: moving cases from regular courts to tribunals that the executive (the government of the day) controls. This weakens judicial independence.
• Why it is a problem:
• The government is often a party to the case, for example as the employer in a service dispute or as the tax collector.
• The same government appoints the members, sets their tenure and pay, and provides money and staff through the parent ministry (the ministry whose law the tribunal applies).

• So one side to the dispute controls the judge. This breaks the "no bias" rule of natural justice.

• The Supreme Court has said tribunals must be as independent of the executive as the courts they replace. Three tests decide this: how members are selected, how the tribunal is made up, and members' tenure and service conditions [2].

• In 2019 (Rojer Mathew), the Court said short tenures with re-appointment let the executive control tribunals [2].

3. The Swaran Singh Committee and the 42nd Amendment

• Swaran Singh Committee (1976): it found the High Courts were overloaded with service cases filed by public servants [2]. It recommended:
• administrative tribunals at the national and state levels for service matters;
• an all-India Appellate Tribunal for appeals from labour courts and industrial tribunals;
• sector tribunals for revenue, land reforms and essential commodities;

• Supreme Court review of tribunal decisions [2].

• 42nd Amendment (1976) followed. It inserted Part XIVA, "Tribunals", with Art. 323A and Art. 323B.

4. Art. 323A and Art. 323B compared

	Art. 323A — Administrative tribunals	Art. 323B — Tribunals for other matters
Who makes the law	Parliament only	Parliament or state legislatures, each within its own law-making powers
Subjects	Recruitment and service conditions of people in public service under the Union, states, local bodies and public corporations	Taxes; foreign exchange, imports and exports; industrial and labour disputes; land reforms; urban land ceiling; elections to Parliament and state legislatures; foodstuffs; rent and tenancy (added by the 75th Amendment, 1994); offences under these laws
Number and levels	One for the Union, and one for each state or a joint one for two or more states. No hierarchy	A hierarchy of tribunals is possible (a lower tribunal and an appellate tribunal)
Clause excluding courts (struck down in 1997)	Art. 323A(2)(d)	Art. 323B(3)(d)

• Administrative tribunal: a body under Art. 323A that decides service disputes of government employees, such as pay, promotion, seniority, transfer and dismissal.
• Tribunals under Article 323B: bodies for the subjects listed in Art. 323B. A law can create a hierarchy of such tribunals.
• The Art. 323B list is not closed. In Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010), the Supreme Court said legislatures can create tribunals on any subject they can make laws on under the Seventh Schedule, not only the subjects listed in Art. 323B [2].
• R. Gandhi (2010) also ruled:
• technical members must not outnumber judicial members on any bench;
• only people with a judicial background can be judicial members [2].

5. Administrative Tribunals Act 1985

• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): set up under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 (the law made under Art. 323A). It has worked since 1 November 1985, and its principal bench is in New Delhi.
• Who it covers: central government employees.

• Who it excludes:

  • the armed forces;
  • officers and servants of the Supreme Court, High Courts and subordinate courts;
  • secretariat staff of Parliament.

• Make-up of a tribunal and its benches (s.5):

• Each tribunal has a Chairman and as many Judicial and Administrative Members as the government decides.
• A bench normally has one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member [4].

• CAT benches normally sit at New Delhi (principal bench), Allahabad, Calcutta, Madras and New Bombay. The Centre can name other places by notification [4].

• State Administrative Tribunal (SAT): set up by the Centre at a state's request, for that state's employees. Two or more states can have a joint tribunal.

• Several states set up SATs and later abolished them (verify current list).

• Appeals from the CAT:

• The 1985 Act first allowed appeal only to the Supreme Court.
• After L. Chandra Kumar (1997, see §6), a case now goes first to a High Court division bench (a bench of two judges).

6. From "substitute" to "supplement": two key cases

S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (decided 9 December 1986; reported 1987)

• The Court upheld the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.
• Holding: Parliament can create a body to replace the High Court in some matters, if that body is as effective as the High Court. Such tribunals were "effective substitutes" for High Courts [2].
• On appointments, the Court said they should be made either:
• by the Centre after consulting the Chief Justice of India, or
• by a high-powered committee headed by the CJI or a sitting Supreme Court or High Court judge [2].

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (decided 18 March 1997; seven judges)

• What it struck down:
• Art. 323A(2)(d) and Art. 323B(3)(d);
• s.28 of the 1985 Act.

• All three had removed the power of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to hear these cases.

• Holding:

• Judicial review is part of the basic structure. Judicial review is the power of courts to strike down laws and government actions that break the Constitution. It works through Arts. 226/227 (High Courts) and Art. 32 (Supreme Court).

• Basic structure means the core features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot destroy, even by amendment.

• What tribunals can now do:

• They are courts of first instance, meaning the first forum that hears the case. They cannot be the last word [2].
• They can test whether other laws are constitutional. They cannot decide the validity of their own parent Act; only the High Court can do that [2].
• Their decisions go to a division bench of the High Court that has jurisdiction over the area [2].

• So tribunals are supplements, not substitutes, for High Courts.

• Who should sit on tribunals:

• Only persons with judicial experience should be appointed [2].

• Giving more weight to non-judicial members would make a tribunal weaker than the High Court it replaces [2].

• Administration: an independent body should manage appointments and the running of tribunals. Until then, all tribunals should be under one nodal ministry, such as the Ministry of Law [2].

• Effects of the ruling:
• It added an extra appeal stage: tribunal → High Court division bench → Supreme Court. This slows final decisions.
• It led to a debate on direct appeals to the Supreme Court.

7. Later developments (link to §4, tribunal reforms)

• Finance Act 2017:
• It merged tribunals with similar work, from 26 to 19 [2].

• It gave the Centre power to make rules on members' qualifications, appointment, removal and service conditions [2].

• Tribunals Reforms Ordinance (April 2021):

• It abolished nine tribunals.

• It moved their work mainly to the High Courts [2].

• Madras Bar Association (2020):

• The Court asked for a National Tribunals Commission (NTC).
• It fixed a five-year term, with an age limit of 70 for the Chairperson and 67 for other members [2].

• It said selection committees should be led by the CJI or the CJI's nominee, with a casting vote [2].

• Madras Bar Association (2021): the Court struck down the four-year tenure and the minimum age of 50 for members [2].

• Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [(2026) 2 SCC 1]:
• The Court struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021.

• It ordered an independent National Tribunals Commission to be set up [3].

• Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 (passed by Parliament, August 2026):

• It repeals the 2021 Act.
• It sets up an NTC. The NTC has a Chairperson who was a Supreme Court judge or a High Court Chief Justice, plus two judicial and two technical members. So 3 of 5 members are judicial [3].
• Search-cum-Selection Committees chaired by a judge recommend one name per vacancy. The government must appoint within three months [3].
• Tribunal members get a five-year term or until age 67, whichever comes first [3].

• It covers 16 tribunals, including the CAT and the SATs [3].

• Problem of delay: tribunals were meant to cut delay, but many now have their own backlogs.

• Armed Forces Tribunal: 18,829 cases pending (28 February 2021) [2].
• ITAT: 91,643 cases pending (1 January 2018) [2].

Prelims Hooks

• Part XIVA (Arts. 323A–323B) was inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976, on the advice of the Swaran Singh Committee (1976).
• Art. 323A: Parliament only; service matters; no hierarchy. Art. 323B: Parliament or state legislatures; listed subjects; hierarchy possible.
• "Rent and tenancy" was added to Art. 323B by the 75th Amendment, 1994.
• Trap: "Elections to Parliament and state legislatures" is an Art. 323B subject, not Art. 323A.
• CAT started on 1 November 1985. Principal bench: New Delhi. It does not cover the armed forces, Supreme Court/High Court staff or Parliament's secretariat staff.
• Sampath Kumar (1987): tribunals are "effective substitutes". L. Chandra Kumar (1997, 7 judges): tribunals are supplements, and judicial review (Arts. 32, 226/227) is basic structure.
• L. Chandra Kumar struck down Art. 323A(2)(d), Art. 323B(3)(d) and s.28 of the 1985 Act. Appeals now go to a High Court division bench.
• R. Gandhi (2010): the Art. 323B list is not exhaustive [2].
• First tribunal in India: the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1941 [2].
• Finance Act 2017 cut tribunals from 26 to 19 [2]. Madras Bar Association [(2026) 2 SCC 1] struck down parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 [3].

Mains Points

• Expertise and speed vs independence: tribunals bring expert knowledge and save the High Courts' time. But when the government is a party and also controls appointments, tenure and funding, the "no bias" rule is broken. The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down such control: in Rojer Mathew (2019) and in Madras Bar Association (2020, 2021 and 2026) [2][3].
• The appeal problem: L. Chandra Kumar protected judicial review but added a High Court stage. Cases now go tribunal → High Court → Supreme Court, which works against the speed tribunals were meant to bring. Options include direct appeals to the Supreme Court on points of law, or regional benches of the Supreme Court.
• One body to run tribunals: L. Chandra Kumar (1997) asked for a single nodal ministry. Madras Bar Association (2020) asked for a National Tribunals Commission. The 2026 Bill sets up an NTC with a judicial majority and CAG audit [2][3]. Test it against the Court's standards: judicial majority, secure tenure, and freedom from the parent ministry.
• Merging and abolishing tribunals without a judicial impact assessment: the 2017 mergers and 2021 abolitions moved cases back to High Courts without studying the extra workload. This defeats the original purpose of tribunals [2].