Tribunalisation of Justice- Boon or Bane?
What is Tribunalisation of Justice?
Tribunalisation of Justice refers to the establishment and proliferation of specialized quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals outside the traditional court system. These tribunals are designed to resolve disputes in specific areas such as taxation, labor, administrative services, consumer rights, and more, providing a faster and often less formal alternative to courts.
Boon or Bane?
This phenomenon can be seen both as a boon and a bane, depending on the context and how tribunals function in practice.
Boon: Advantages of Tribunalisation
Speedy Justice: Tribunals often provide quicker resolutions than traditional courts, which face huge backlogs.
Specialization: Tribunal members are usually experts in their specific fields, leading to more informed decisions.
Accessibility: Tribunals are less formal, making it easier for common people to approach them without lawyers.
Relieves Courts: They reduce the burden on courts by handling specialized disputes, allowing courts to focus on other matters.
Cost-effective: Tribunals generally have lower costs of litigation.
Bane: Disadvantages of Tribunalisation
Lack of Uniformity: Multiple tribunals may lead to inconsistent rulings.
Procedural Informality: May sometimes compromise the principles of natural justice due to relaxed procedures.
Accountability Issues: Tribunal members might lack judicial independence, raising concerns of bias.
Appeal Mechanism: Limited or complicated appeals might deny full judicial scrutiny.
Proliferation Problem: Too many tribunals can cause confusion and overlap of jurisdiction.
Detailed Case Laws on Tribunalisation of Justice
1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261
Facts: The Constitution Bench examined the constitutional validity of the tribunals and the extent to which judicial review by High Courts and Supreme Court can be curtailed.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review of administrative tribunals is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted.
Significance: The court struck a balance by upholding the validity of tribunals but made it clear that their decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Implication: Tribunalisation is valid but cannot infringe upon the constitutional role of courts.
2. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 288
Facts: The issue was whether administrative tribunals and other bodies could encroach upon the powers of the judiciary.
Held: The court emphasized the independence of judiciary and stated that tribunals cannot be a substitute for courts in adjudicating judicial matters.
Significance: Highlighted the importance of preserving the judiciary’s supremacy and cautioned against tribunals undermining it.
Implication: Tribunalisation should not erode judicial independence.
3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge to the constitutional validity of administrative tribunals and their power to deal with service matters.
Held: The court upheld the legitimacy of tribunals, emphasizing their role in easing the burden on courts but reaffirmed that tribunals should follow principles of natural justice.
Significance: Reiterated the need for tribunals to operate fairly and justly.
Implication: Tribunalisation is acceptable but must respect fundamental rights.
4. C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457
Facts: Question on the separation of powers and the role of tribunals vis-à-vis courts.
Held: The Supreme Court declared that tribunals are not courts but quasi-judicial bodies and do not have the same powers.
Significance: Clarified the distinction between courts and tribunals.
Implication: Tribunal decisions are subject to supervision by courts.
5. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1675
Facts: Legitimacy of administrative tribunals in handling service matters.
Held: Validated the establishment of tribunals under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution.
Significance: Supported the constitutional foundation of tribunals.
Implication: Provided a clear legal basis for tribunalisation.
Overall Analysis
Tribunalisation has significantly benefited the justice delivery system by making it more accessible, specialized, and speedy.
However, unchecked proliferation, lack of adequate procedural safeguards, and undermining judicial review could pose serious challenges.
The judiciary has played a critical role in maintaining the balance through key rulings emphasizing judicial review and the constitutional role of courts.
Conclusion: Boon or Bane?
Tribunalisation is essentially a boon if implemented with proper safeguards, judicial oversight, and adherence to principles of natural justice. It complements the judicial system by addressing specific disputes efficiently. However, without appropriate checks, it can become a bane by diluting judicial authority, causing inconsistency, and undermining fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments