UPSC Mains Answer: How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribiinals in India.

Difficulty Level: Hard

Sub-category: Indian Polity and Governance - Constitutional and Administrative Law

Introduction

The establishment of tribunals in India, under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution, was aimed at expediting justice and reducing the burden on ordinary courts. However, the proliferation of tribunals has sparked debates regarding their impact on the jurisdiction of ordinary courts and their constitutional validity.

Body

Jurisdiction of Ordinary Courts

"Tribunals, by design, assume jurisdiction over specific matters such as service disputes, tax issues, and environmental concerns, which were traditionally adjudicated by ordinary courts. While this shift aims to ensure specialized and efficient adjudication, it has led to concerns about the erosion of the judiciarys role. For instance, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) handle matters that were previously under the purview of high courts and district courts. This transfer of jurisdiction can be seen as a curtailment of the ordinary courts authority, raising questions about the balance of power between constitutional courts and tribunals.", Constitutional Validity: The constitutional validity of tribunals rests on their adherence to principles of separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, and access to justice. The Supreme Court, in cases like L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), upheld the validity of tribunals but emphasized that they must function as supplementary, not substitutive, to ordinary courts. The Court mandated that tribunals should be manned by judicial members and that their decisions should be subject to judicial review by high courts to ensure constitutional compliance.

Competency of Tribunals

The competency of tribunals hinges on their composition, expertise, and efficiency. While tribunals like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) have demonstrated competency in handling technical matters, concerns persist regarding delays, lack of uniformity in procedures, and inadequate infrastructure. The Finance Act, 2017, which sought to merge tribunals, further highlighted issues of administrative control and independence, raising doubts about their competency to deliver justice.

Conclusion

While tribunals play a crucial role in reducing the backlog of cases and providing specialized adjudication, their establishment must not undermine the jurisdiction of ordinary courts or compromise constitutional principles. Ensuring judicial oversight, maintaining independence, and improving infrastructure are essential to uphold the constitutional validity and competency of tribunals in India. A balanced approach, where tribunals complement rather than replace ordinary courts, is imperative for a robust justice delivery system.