Comparative effectiveness of tribunals vs courts
Comparative Effectiveness of Tribunals vs Courts
Introduction
Tribunals and courts both serve as adjudicatory bodies to resolve disputes, but they differ significantly in their structure, procedure, expertise, and accessibility. Understanding their comparative effectiveness involves examining aspects like speed, cost, expertise, flexibility, and procedural formality.
Key Differences and Effectiveness Criteria
| Aspect | Tribunals | Courts |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Specialized, focused on particular subject matters (e.g., administrative, tax) | General jurisdiction over all types of legal disputes |
| Procedure | Informal, less strict rules of evidence and procedure | Formal, strict adherence to procedural and evidentiary laws |
| Expertise | Experts in the relevant field (e.g., tax experts in tax tribunals) | Judges may or may not have specialized knowledge |
| Speed | Generally faster due to simplified procedures | Often slower due to backlog and formal processes |
| Cost | Less expensive due to simplified procedure and faster disposal | More expensive due to legal formalities and lengthy process |
| Appeal | Decisions can often be appealed in courts | Final authority in most cases (subject to higher courts) |
Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Speed and Efficiency:
Tribunals are designed to provide speedy justice with minimal procedural delays. Courts, while authoritative, often suffer from backlog and longer procedural requirements.
Case: L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261
The Supreme Court held that tribunals are a quicker alternative to courts for resolving disputes, but they must comply with principles of natural justice and provide fair adjudication. It emphasized that tribunals' decisions are subject to judicial review, preserving the balance between efficiency and fairness.
2. Expertise and Specialization:
Tribunals are constituted with members having expertise in specific fields, which enhances the quality of decisions in technical matters.
Case: Union of India vs R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1
The Supreme Court acknowledged the specialized nature of tribunals such as the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and emphasized that their members’ expertise makes them better suited than ordinary courts to handle administrative service matters.
3. Access to Justice and Informality:
Tribunals generally provide more accessible forums for litigants, often with less formal procedures and lower costs.
Case: A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531
The Court recognized that tribunals provide an accessible forum with simpler procedures, but emphasized the need to maintain fair trial standards and ensure that tribunals do not become “mere rubber stamps.”
4. Judicial Review and Legal Oversight:
Courts retain the power to review tribunal decisions to ensure legality and adherence to fundamental rights.
Case: Manohar Joshi vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board, (2000) 3 SCC 375
The Supreme Court held that while tribunals are efficient, their decisions are subject to scrutiny by courts on questions of law and jurisdiction, preventing misuse of powers.
5. Balancing Informality with Justice:
While tribunals aim to be informal, the courts stress adherence to natural justice and procedural fairness.
Case: State of Punjab vs Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 214
The Court stated that tribunals must maintain fairness and natural justice despite the informality to ensure justice is served without procedural excess.
Summary of Effectiveness
| Criteria | Tribunals | Courts |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | Faster resolution due to simplified procedure | Slower due to formalities and backlog |
| Expertise | Members have technical knowledge | Judges may lack domain-specific expertise |
| Cost | Lower due to informal procedure | Higher costs due to lengthy trials |
| Flexibility | More flexible procedural rules | Strict procedural and evidentiary rules |
| Quality of Justice | Good but sometimes questioned for informality | Generally thorough but slow |
| Appeal and Review | Decisions subject to judicial review | Final appellate authority |
Conclusion
Tribunals provide a valuable alternative to courts in resolving specialized disputes quickly and efficiently. However, their informality and expedited procedures require judicial oversight to ensure justice and fairness. Courts, while slower and costlier, provide a more formal and authoritative adjudication with thorough procedural safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments