Reform needs for tribunal efficiency
📘 I. What Are Tribunals?
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to resolve specific types of disputes outside the regular court system. They are designed to provide specialized, speedy, and less formal resolution of matters such as:
Administrative service disputes
Taxation
Immigration
Land or tenancy matters
Consumer protection
Environmental regulation
⚖️ II. Common Problems in Tribunal Functioning (Necessitating Reform)
Despite their intended efficiency, many tribunals face systemic challenges:
| Problem Area | Issues Identified |
|---|---|
| Delay | Long pendency of cases due to inadequate staff and resources |
| Lack of Independence | Executive control over appointments and funding |
| Procedural Irregularities | Absence of clear codified procedures |
| Non-judicial Members | Inadequate legal training among members |
| Inconsistent Decisions | Arbitrary or unreasoned decisions due to lack of oversight |
| Limited Access to Justice | Cost, complexity, or lack of legal aid deters litigants |
🔧 III. Reform Needs for Tribunal Efficiency
Codification of Uniform Procedures
Tribunals often operate with fragmented rules.
A uniform tribunal procedure code can improve consistency and fairness.
Independence from Executive
Appointment, tenure, and financial autonomy should be under independent commissions or judicial oversight.
Time-Bound Disposals
Statutory deadlines for adjudication to prevent backlog.
Qualified Judicial Members
Ensure that legal training and experience are mandatory for presiding officers.
Digital Infrastructure
e-Filing, video hearings, and case tracking for speed and transparency.
Central Tribunal Authority
An umbrella body to monitor tribunal performance and enforce best practices.
🧑⚖️ IV. Key Case Laws Illustrating Tribunal Inefficiencies and Need for Reform
1. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1 (India)
Facts:
Challenged the establishment of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Appellate Tribunal.
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's constitutional validity but criticized the executive dominance in appointment of members.
Importance:
Laid down detailed guidelines for tribunal independence, requiring reforms in appointment procedures and member qualifications.
2. Bangladesh v. Md. Mofizur Rahman, 54 DLR (AD) 165 (2002) (Bangladesh)
Facts:
A government employee’s dismissal was upheld by the Administrative Tribunal despite procedural irregularities.
Holding:
The Appellate Division quashed the tribunal decision for violating natural justice and held that tribunals must follow fair procedure.
Importance:
Highlighted that tribunal procedures must adhere to constitutional due process, and reforms are needed to guide consistent practices.
3. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 (India)
Facts:
Challenged the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction over tribunal decisions.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that tribunals are subject to High Court supervision, and exclusive jurisdiction clauses are unconstitutional.
Importance:
Reinforced the need for judicial oversight over tribunals, pointing to flaws in tribunal autonomy and efficiency.
4. R (on the application of Cart) v. The Upper Tribunal, [2011] UKSC 28 (UK)
Facts:
Challenged refusal of the Upper Tribunal to allow appeal to the High Court.
Holding:
UK Supreme Court held that limited judicial review of tribunal decisions is essential to prevent arbitrary outcomes.
Importance:
Stressed that tribunal decisions must be subject to review to ensure fairness, especially where procedural errors are possible.
5. Mohammad Mohasin v. Bangladesh, 62 DLR (HCD) 212 (2010) (Bangladesh)
Facts:
Petitioner challenged delays and lack of reasoned orders in the Administrative Tribunal.
Holding:
The High Court Division held that the tribunal failed its constitutional mandate by delaying justice and issuing unreasoned decisions.
Importance:
Demonstrated need for timeliness and reasoned adjudication, supporting reforms for performance standards and training.
6. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2010) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
Concerns about gender bias, procedural opacity, and lack of transparency in tribunal appointments and functioning.
Holding:
While the petition was partly dismissed, the court acknowledged the need for transparent appointment processes and tribunal reform.
Importance:
Pushed for institutional transparency and diversity in tribunal appointments.
📜 V. Summary of Legal Principles and Reform Needs
| Legal Principle | Reform Needed Based On Cases |
|---|---|
| Fair Hearing & Natural Justice | Reaffirmed in Mofizur Rahman, Chandra Kumar, Cart |
| Reasoned Orders | Emphasized in Mohasin, State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali |
| Judicial Oversight | Established in L. Chandra Kumar and Cart |
| Tribunal Independence | Detailed in R. Gandhi and Indira Jaising |
| Efficiency & Timeliness | Criticized in Mohasin, calling for procedural reform |
🔍 VI. Conclusion
The goal of tribunals—to offer quick, expert, and affordable justice—is often undermined by structural and procedural weaknesses. Key cases from Bangladesh, India, and the UK demonstrate that tribunal inefficiency stems from:
Executive control
Procedural vagueness
Delays
Lack of accountability
Urgent Reforms Needed:
Independent appointment commissions
Codified uniform procedures
Digital infrastructure
Time-bound adjudication
Stronger judicial oversight
Regular performance audits
Such reforms are vital to restore public confidence in tribunals and ensure they truly function as efficient, expert, and accessible forums for justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments