Tribunalisation of Justice in India

The doctrine of the separation of powers is enshrined within the constitution of India. Though article 50 of the constitution (being a Directive Principle of the State Policy) is not legally enforceable, it expresses the desire of our constitution framers to achieve the separation of the executive and judiciary. However, practical concerns necessitate the devolution of a wide variety of decision-making and adjudicatory functions on the administrative apparatus of the state. The most popular mode of administrative adjudication has been the institution of tribunals which we discuss in the following.

Tribunalisation of justice in India goes as far back as 1941 when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was set up to provide speedy and specialised administrative justice. This institution proved to be efficient and flexible. Its success gave impetus to the setting up of several similar tribunals in other areas.

In 1969, the Administrative Reforms Commission recommended the setting up of civil services tribunals both at the Central and State levels for the efficient resolution of service-related matters. A similar recommendation was made by the Swaran Singh Committee set up in 1975. This idea also found favor with the Supreme Court which observed in Kamala Kanti Dutta v Union of India that a tribunal to listen to service matters had become a necessity to protect the apex court from ‘the avalanche of writ petitions’ relating to service matters that deluged it on a daily basis. Some states had already taken the initiative in this regard and set up their own Service Tribunals.

Finally, as part of the 42^nd amendment of the Constitution passed by the Parliament in 1976, Part XIV-A was added to the Constitution. Articles 323-A and 323-B enable the Parliament to constitute Administrative Tribunals for dealing specifically with the matters included therein. This was followed up with the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, of 1985 which proved to be a big step ahead towards tribunalisation of service-related disputes.

Administrative Tribunals in India may be classified into four categories:

1.     Tribunals set up outside the judicial system to resolve disputes between the government and private individuals

2.     Tribunals set up within the judicial system to resolve disputes between citizens. Rent Tribunal, Motor Vehicle Tribunal and Industrial Tribunal are some examples.

3.     Tribunals established outside the judicial system to decide disputes between private individuals. Company Law Board (CLB) 1988 falls within this unique category.

4.     Tribunals constituted under the provisions of Articles 323-A and 323-B to decide disputes between the government and citizens.

The Company Law Board had been delegated the functions discharged by the High Court in this area. Such delegation of the High Courts’ judicial function to a quasi-administrative body was challenged as being unconstitutional in the Union of India v Delhi High Court Bar Association, 2002. However, the Supreme Court rejected this plea and upheld the constitutional validity of the Company Law Board. Encourages by the favorable stance of the Supreme Court towards the delegation of some judicial functions to tribunals, soon the government established more tribunals in the fields of company law, tax law, and intellectual property.

Delegation of High Courts’ jurisdiction in these areas does not put the functioning of the tribunals beyond the purview of judicial review. This was asserted by the Supreme Court in L Chandra Kumar. It was held that delegation of jurisdiction to a tribunal in an area does not exclude the High Court’s power to listen to a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Article 21 empowers the citizens of India to demand speedy and fair justice as a fundamental right, but our overburdened judicial system hinders the timely delivery of justice; hence tribunals have an important role to play. However, the delegation of judicial functions to administrative bodies ought not to exclude the High Courts and the Supreme Court from exercising their powers of judicial review. This is important because a tribunal has some but not all the trappings of a court. It performs the adjudicating function, but it is still a department of the government. In order to safeguard against the danger of its becoming an extension of the executive, in L Chandra Kumar the Supreme Court laid down that the judges of tribunals shall have the same qualifications, tenure, conditions of service and independent manner of appointment as the judges of a usual court. And, the fulfilment of such conditions notwithstanding, High Courts and the Supreme Court would still retain their powers of judicial review.

In Kihoto Hollohan v Zachiillhu, the Supreme Court laid down the following three-point test to figure out whether the nature of cases decided by a tribunal is of judicial nature or not-

1.     There is an affirmation by one party and denial by the other party

2.     The dispute pertains to the rights and obligations of the parties involved

3.     The authority is called upon to decide

From a functional perspective, a tribunal is neither exclusively a judicial body nor merely an administrative one but something in between.

In general, an administrative tribunal shall have the following characteristics:

1. An administrative tribunal is created through a statute of the parliament, and not otherwise.

2.     It has most attributes of a court of law but not all

3.     It is a quasi-judicial body but is essentially a creation of the executive

4. To ensure their smooth functioning, tribunals are entrusted with the same powers to summon witnesses, administer oaths, and compel the production of documents as usual courts of law.

5. Tribunals are allowed to function with a greater measure of procedural flexibility, therefore usual rules of evidence do not apply to them strictly.

6.     Despite being allowed greater flexibility in procedural and evidentiary matters, tribunals are supposed to function objectively and judicially.

7.     Adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure the autonomy of tribunals from the direct control of the executive to ensure impartial delivery of justice.

Some of the authorities that have been deemed to be tribunals by successive court judgments are as follows:

Industrial Tribunals established under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Railways Rates Tribunals established under the Railways Act, 1980

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal established under the Income Tax Act, 1961

Employees’ Insurance Court established under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948

Court of Survey established under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958

Copyright Board established under the Copyright Act, 1958

Unlawful Activities Tribunal established under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Rent Control Authority

Excise Appellate Authority

Panchayat Court

Payment of Wages Authority

On the other hand, some of the administrative bodies that were declared not to be tribunals by the successive decisions of the Courts are as follows:

Domestic tribunals

Conciliation officers

Military tribunals

Private arbitrators

Legislative assembly

Customs office

A Registrar acting as a taxing authority

The Zonal Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India

 

All tribunals are expected to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Their proceedings are considered to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of Sections 193, 195 and 196 of the India Penal Code, and Sections 480 and 482 of CPC apply to them. They are exempted from the technical rules of the Evidence Act, though they are all times supposed to adhere to the principles of openness, fairness, and impartiality. All their decisions must pass the test of reasonableness.

The principle of res judicata does not apply to tribunals.

In Mallappa Murigeppa Sajjan v State Karnataka High Court laid down that the autonomy of tribunals must be upheld by state governments. They do not possess the right to suspend the functioning of tribunals as per their whims and fancies.

In P Satyanarayana v Land Reforms Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that in the absence of enabling statutory provisions a tribunal would not be at liberty to review its decisions. However, it may recall an order that it believes to have been obtained through fraud.