TRIBUNALS.

I. Introduction

  • Upendra Baxi's critique (1982) of the Indian legal system’s failure to create a democratic society.

  • Call for restructuring over minor reforms.

  • Increasing backlog and delays amidst lack of calls for overhaul in contemporary times.

  • Historical public regard for the Supreme Court shapes less radical reform proposals today.

  • Focus on constitutional status of tribunals as a key issue.

II. A Brief History of the Evolution of Tribunals in India

1. Origin of Tribunals (1950-1975)

  • Tribunals started under colonial government; post-independence, initially in tax law.

  • Articles 136 and 227 in the original Constitution allowed Supreme Court and High Courts to review tribunal decisions.

  • Significant backlog growth noted from 1950 (771 cases) to 2014 (31.39 million cases).

  • Multiple reports since 1924 to address backlog and delay issues.

2. Push for Tribunals During Emergency (1975-1977)

  • Emergency (1975-1977) led to constitutional changes and introduction of tribunals.

  • Swaran Singh Committee created recommendations for stability and efficiency in judiciary.

  • 42nd Amendment established Articles 323A (Administrative Tribunals) and 323B (Tribunals for other matters).

III. Constitutional Litigation Over Tribunals (1985-2014)

1. The Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 and Sampath Kumar Case

  • Aimed to create administrative tribunals at Centre and States.

  • Supreme Court's judgments focused on the constitutionality of excluding Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over certain matters.

  • Emphasized the need for judicial members and a connection to High Courts.

2. Post-Sampath Kumar Cases (1986-1993)

  • Complaints about tribunal management prompted further litigation.

  • R.K. Jain case raised issues of structural and functional problems in tribunals.

3. Revisiting Sampath Kumar: L. Chandra Kumar Case (1993-1997)

  • Chandra Kumar upheld the importance of Base structure principles, asserting judicial review cannot be ousted by tribunes.

  • Courts began emphasizing supplementary role of tribunals rather than replacements for High Courts.

4. The Immediate Aftermath of Chandra Kumar (1997-2004)

  • The judiciary accepted the legitimacy of tribunals, focusing on improving their operational standards.

  • Highlighted problem of lack of administrative independence and effectiveness.

5. National Company Law Tribunals—Round I (2004-2010)

  • Creation of NCLT to streamline company law adjudication faced constitutional challenges.

  • Supreme Court affirmed legal authority to establish NCLT while noting flaws in its original structure.

6. National Tax Tribunal Decision (2014)

  • National Tax Tribunal Act ruled unconstitutional for seeking to replace High Courts rather than supplement them.

7. National Company Law Tribunals—Round II (2010-2015)

  • Madras Bar Association II reiterated need for judicial independence and proper qualifications for tribunal members.

IV. Conclusion

  • Shift from initial insignificance of tribunals to vital constitutional roles.

  • Growing concerns about their functioning and alignment with judicial oversight principles.

  • Recommendations emphasize need for checks to ensure judiciary independence and effectiveness amidst increasing legal backlog challenges.