Tribunals and Their Constitutional Validity Post Madras Bar Case
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The role and structure of tribunals in India have come under intense judicial scrutiny, particularly after the Madras Bar Association case (2021). In this landmark judgment, the supreme court reaffirmed its position on the independence of the judiciary and constitutional balance of power, raising serious questions about how tribunals function and whether they can replace traditional courts.
Tribunals were initially created to reduce the burden on regular courts and ensure speedy, expert adjudication. However, over time, issues around executive control, lack of transparency, and compromised independence began to surface. The Court’s stance in the Madras Bar case marks a turning point in redefining the constitutional validity and design of these quasi-judicial bodies.
Background: Why Tribunals Were Introduced
Tribunals were envisioned as specialized forums under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution to deal with administrative and other disputes (like service matters, tax, industrial issues). They were meant to be:
- Faster and more efficient than courts
- Run by experts with domain knowledge
- Less formal and more accessible
However, their growth brought concerns about the erosion of judicial functions, especially when appeals from tribunal decisions bypassed the High Courts.
The Madras Bar Association Case (2021): Key Highlights
This case challenged certain provisions of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, particularly regarding:
- Tenure of tribunal members
- Appointment procedures
- Lack of judicial representation in selection committees
The Supreme Court struck down parts of the ordinance and upheld that:
- Minimum tenure of tribunal members must be 5 years to ensure institutional continuity.
- Search-cum-selection committees must have a dominant judicial presence.
- The executive cannot unilaterally override judicial recommendations.
- The principle of judicial independence must be respected, even in tribunals.
Constitutional Concerns Raised
1. Separation of Powers
The Court emphasized that tribunals, though quasi-judicial, cannot be fully controlled by the executive. Doing so would violate the basic structure doctrine that mandates independence of the judiciary.
2. Bypassing High Courts
Many tribunal laws originally excluded judicial review by High Courts and allowed direct appeals only to the Supreme Court. This was deemed problematic as it created an unconstitutional vacuum of appellate oversight and overburdened the top court.
3. Lack of Uniformity and Oversight
The structure, tenure, and appointment mechanisms vary widely across tribunals, creating inconsistency in judicial standards and accountability.
Post-Judgment Implications
- Several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act were amended to align with the SC's directions.
- The Finance Act, 2017, which restructured tribunal appointments through rules rather than legislation, is still under legal scrutiny.
- Tribunal vacancies remain high, affecting justice delivery despite reforms.
- The ruling reaffirmed that judicial primacy in appointments is non-negotiable.
What Remains Unresolved
- The constitutional status of tribunals is still under debate, especially their position in the judicial hierarchy.
- Whether tribunals can effectively substitute courts without compromising fundamental rights is still being tested.
- Implementation gaps between SC directives and government action persist, especially in appointing qualified members and maintaining independence.
Conclusion
The Madras Bar Association judgment stands as a constitutional checkpoint for the validity, structure, and functioning of tribunals in India. It sends a strong message that judicial independence cannot be diluted, even in alternative forums of adjudication. For tribunals to truly serve their purpose, they must be structured with judicial fairness, accountability, and institutional autonomy—not as executive-controlled extensions of the bureaucracy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments