Supreme Court Seeks Comprehensive Tribunal Framework

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has directed the Union Government to place before it, within four weeks, a comprehensive and uniform proposal on the functioning of tribunals across the country. The Court emphasised that tribunals, as specialised quasi-judicial bodies, cannot be allowed to become dysfunctional or defunct due to administrative or legislative lapses. This directive follows a series of constitutional challenges and judicial interventions concerning the tribunal system and its independence.

Bench Composition and Core Judicial Observations

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi. The bench underscored that the Union Government must take a holistic and considered policy decision regarding the future of the tribunal system and submit a comprehensive scheme for judicial scrutiny.

The Court observed that the proposed framework should cover all tribunals, whether constituted under the Constitution or created by parliamentary statutes, and may involve legislative amendments if the government considers them necessary.

Interim Measures to Prevent Tribunal Dysfunction

During the hearing, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Union Government, suggested that as an interim arrangement, chairpersons of tribunals could be allowed to continue until they reach the age of superannuation or until the selection process for their successors is completed, whichever is earlier. The Court recorded this submission and granted the government four weeks to finalise its broader proposal.

To ensure continuity in adjudication, the Court permitted Justice Rajesh Khare to continue as Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and allowed the Chairperson of DRAT Kolkata to remain in office until further orders. The Court clarified that these interim directions would operate until a holistic proposal is placed before it, to prevent tribunals from grinding to a halt.

Background: Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and Judicial Scrutiny

The Supreme Court’s latest directions must be understood in the context of its earlier judgment in November last year, where it struck down key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Court held that Parliament had attempted to reintroduce provisions that had already been invalidated in earlier judgments, amounting to an impermissible legislative override of binding judicial decisions.

A bench led by then Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai held that the 2021 Act merely repackaged provisions struck down in the Madras Bar Association cases (MBA-IV and MBA-V), without curing the constitutional defects identified earlier. The Court invalidated provisions prescribing a uniform four-year tenure for tribunal members and a minimum entry age of 50 years, holding them arbitrary and detrimental to judicial independence.

The Court cautioned that once constitutional infirmities are identified and binding directions are issued, Parliament cannot simply reenact the same provisions under a different legislative label.

Statutory Framework Governing Tribunals in India

Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, consolidated and rationalised various tribunals and introduced uniform service conditions for tribunal members. Several provisions of the Act were challenged for infringing judicial independence and separation of powers.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

This Act provides for Central and State Administrative Tribunals to adjudicate disputes relating to public service and service conditions of government employees.

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended)

This Act establishes Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) for expeditious recovery of bank and financial institution dues.

Other Sector-Specific Tribunal Statutes

Numerous tribunals operate under statutes such as the Companies Act, 2013 (NCLT/NCLAT), Income Tax Act, 1961 (ITAT), Competition Act, 2002 (COMPAT/NCLAT), and environmental and telecom regulatory laws.

Constitutional Provisions Governing Tribunals

Article 323A and Article 323B: Constitutional Tribunals

Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution empower Parliament and State Legislatures to establish administrative and other tribunals for specialised adjudication. These provisions were introduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment to reduce the burden on courts.

Article 14: Equality Before Law

Tribunal adjudication must comply with the guarantee of equality before law and equal protection of laws, ensuring fair and non-arbitrary procedures.

Article 21: Right to Life and Access to Justice

The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 to include access to justice and fair adjudicatory mechanisms. Dysfunctional tribunals directly impair this constitutional guarantee.

Article 50: Separation of Judiciary from Executive

Article 50 directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive. Excessive executive control over tribunal appointments and functioning raises separation of powers concerns.

Basic Structure Doctrine

Judicial independence and separation of powers form part of the basic structure of the Constitution, limiting Parliament’s power to restructure tribunals in a manner that undermines these principles.

Judicial Precedents on Tribunal Independence and Reforms

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

The Supreme Court held that tribunals are subject to judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court, affirming the constitutional status of tribunals while preserving the supervisory jurisdiction of constitutional courts.

Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010, 2014, 2020)

In a series of landmark judgments (MBA-I to MBA-V), the Court laid down principles governing tribunal composition, tenure, appointments, and service conditions to ensure judicial independence and competence.

Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019)

The Court examined tribunal reforms and emphasised the need for independence, competence, and a transparent appointment mechanism, cautioning against executive dominance.

Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 Case (Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2021–2023)

The Court struck down several provisions of the 2021 Act, holding that Parliament cannot re-enact invalidated provisions and that tenure and age restrictions must ensure independence and attract competent members.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The Court established the Basic Structure doctrine, which constrains legislative power and protects judicial independence and separation of powers.

Proposal for National Tribunals Commission

The Supreme Court has previously proposed the establishment of a National Tribunals Commission to oversee appointments, service conditions, and administration of tribunals. The Commission was envisioned as an institutional safeguard to insulate tribunals from executive control and ensure uniform standards. However, this reform remains pending legislative and executive action.

Policy and Governance Implications

The Court’s latest directive reflects judicial concern over the declining functionality and independence of tribunals due to vacancies, administrative delays, and executive dominance. Tribunals were originally envisaged as efficient alternatives to traditional courts, but systemic challenges have undermined their effectiveness.

A comprehensive tribunal framework, as sought by the Court, could reshape India’s quasi-judicial architecture, streamline appointments, and reinforce constitutional principles of judicial independence and separation of powers.

Conclusion: Toward a Holistic Tribunal Governance Framework

The Supreme Court’s direction to the Union Government to present a comprehensive tribunal framework marks a significant moment in India’s constitutional and administrative law jurisprudence. The Court’s insistence on preventing tribunals from becoming defunct, coupled with its rejection of legislative overrides, underscores the primacy of constitutional principles over administrative convenience.

The proposed framework, if implemented, could strengthen tribunal independence, enhance access to justice, and restore public confidence in India’s specialised adjudicatory institutions.