INTRODUCTION
The origin of tribunals in India dates back to the year 1941 when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was established in order to provide specialized and speedy administrative justice. Presently, the existence of tribunalisation is mainly accredited to globalization of trade and WTO Agreement imperative which demands justice to be open, fair and speedy.
Tribunals play a crucial part in the dispute resolution process. Tribunals work differently from courts, from the appointment process to the procedures followed. Tribunals are not required to follow any consistent method as outlined in the Civil Procedure Code or the Indian Evidence Act, but must adhere to the principles of natural justice. However, the tribunals have their own set of drawbacks, including a lack of independence; administrative difficulties, such as anomalies in member qualification, tenure, retirement age, and Nodal ministries; the High Court’s jurisdiction and case pending status; and vacancies in tribunals. Tribunal administration has grown to be a significant component of both government and everyday life.
CATEGORIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
Administrative tribunals can be classified into four categories, namely:
1. Tribunals that are setup outside mainstream judicial system and decide disputes between government and private individuals.
2. Tribunals that are setup within the judicial framework and decides disputes between citizens pertaining to rent, industries, motor vehicles etc.
3. Tribunals that are setup to decide disputes between private individuals but established outside the mainstream judicial system.
4. Tribunals that are constituted under Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution of India in order to decide disputes pertaining to government and private individuals.
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF TRIBUNALS
Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides the citizens the right to specialized, quality and speedy justice. However, the existing judicial system is unable to provide speedy justice due to inherent delays, technicalities of procedure, by labyrinth of appeals and affordable cost. Thus, the need for administrative tribunals cannot be over emphasized. It is pertinent that administrative tribunals do not violate the integrity of the constitutional judicial system which forms a part of the basic structure of the constitution. Therefore, tribunals may be organized as a part of the civil Court System and Criminal Court System under the guidance of the Supreme Court of India as has similarly been organized in the United Kingdom under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, 2007.
The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association upheld the validity of the tribunals that decide disputes between private individuals that are established outside the mainstream judicial system. Due to this decision of the Supreme Court, the government decided to establish more tribunals within areas of company law, tax law and intellectual property and the jurisdiction of High Courts was taken away and given to administrative tribunals. This led to a conflict between constitutional judiciary and Parliament where the executive always tried to subdue the judiciary by limiting its jurisdiction either overtly or covertly.
Therefore, in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Court asserted the power of the judicial review and superitendence over the tribunals by observing that excusing the jurisdiction of the High Court violates the basic structure of the Constitution. The court held that Article 323-A and Article 323-B are not unconstitutional but those provisions of law which invalidated jurisdiction of constitutional court under Article 226, Article 227 and Article 32 of the Constitution to be unconstitutional.
Similarly, the Parliament in the year 2002 amended the Companies Act, 1956 and established the National Company Law Tribunal containing 62 members and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal containing 3 members in order to exercised jurisdiction under the law that took away the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of these tribunals was challenged in the case of Union of India v. Madras Bar Association. The Madras High Court upheld the validity of National Company Law Tribunal but also struck down certain provisions of the Acton the grounds of unconstitutionality.
Thereby the matter came before the Supreme Court and simultaneously the government issued an ordinance to create the National Taxation Tribunal. The constitutional validity of the law was repeatedly challenged in various High Courts which were then transferred to the Supreme Court.
This matter was referred to a Bench of five judges who considered three main questions, namely:
1) Does the Parliament possess competence to vest essential judicial functions in a tribunal outside its authoritative domain?
2) What is the constitutional limit to the transfer of such power to the administrative tribunal?
3) Whether the creation of independent administrative tribunals violate the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary?
The Supreme Court focused on matters pertaining to qualifications, tenure conditions of service and the manner of appointment of judges of the tribunals but did not decide on the role of tribunals in the overall constitutional justice delivery system. However, the Supreme Court de-linked the tribunals under Article 323-B of the Constitution and other tribunals. Thus, tribunals can act as a substitute of judicial justice only in cases where the tenure, qualifications, conditions of service, independent manner of appointment etc. of the judges of the tribunals are same as that of the judges of a judicial court.
In the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held the National Tax Tribunal to be unconstitutional upon the abovementioned reasoning.
Also, in the case of Shamshad Basheer v. Union of India, the Division Bench of Madras High Court held that the main provisions of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board established under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to be unconstitutional on the ground that an officer of the executive cannot act as a judicial capacity.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
An administrative tribunal shall have the following characteristics, namely:
1. An administrative tribunal has statutory origin as it is a result of creation of a statute.
2. Administrative tribunals possesses some features of a judicial court but not all.
3. An administrative tribunal performs judicial functions as well as quasi-judicial functions, which differ from pure administrative or executive functions. They are also bound to act judicially.
4. An administrative tribunals possess power of courts to summon witnesses, to administer oath and to compel production of documents in procedural matters.
5. Administrative Tribunals are not bound by the standard rules of evidence or procedure.
6. Administrative tribunals are not bound by the doctrine of precedent.
7. The decision of an administrative tribunal is judicial in nature and not merely administrative. This is because they have to record findings of facts objectively and then apply the law to them without regard to executive policy.
8. Most administrative tribunals do not deal with cases where the government is a party rather, they also deal with disputes between two parties; for example, Election Tribunal, Rent Tribunal, Industrial Tribunal etc. However, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal always decides cases where one party is the government and the other is the assessees.
9. Administrative tribunals are not subject to any administrative interference in the discharge of their judicial functions or quasi-judicial functions, as they are independent administrative bodies that exercise judicial powers granted by the Constitution itself, apart from the statute creating it.
10. The administrative tribunals are under judicial control via writs of certiorari and prohibition.
STATURORY TRIBUNALS
An intensive form of government lead to an administration possessing adjudicatory powers. The existence of a tribunal is quite important for the exercise of adjudicatory powers by administrative bodies. The word “tribunal” is also understood as “seat of the judge” and its wide application also includes within itself the term “court”. However, with regards to administrative law, the word “tribunal” has special meaning and significance. The word “tribunal” is used to refer to adjudicatory bodies outside the sphere of ordinary courts of the land. The Constitution of India, under Article 136, Article 226 and Article 227 uses the terms “tribunals” and “courts” to mean two different things. Therefore, a tribunal may possess some but not all trappings of a court as was also held in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P. N. Sharma.
In order for a body to be considered to be a tribunal, it must be administrative characteristics while also possessing adjudicatory powers to decide matters pertaining to questions of law or fact that affect the rights of citizens.
The Supreme Court in the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, provided a test to determine whether an administrative body exercising adjudicatory powers is a tribunal or not. The test is whether;
1) There is a lis – an affirmation by one party and denial by the other;
2) The dispute involves decision on the rights and obligations of parties; and
3) The authority is called upon to decide it.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISION OF TRIBUNALS
If the applicable statute does not provide the ability to appeal, revise, or refer to a Tribunal’s judgment, no such right is retained. Provisions can also be enacted to remove the jurisdiction of civil courts, and the decisions issued by these tribunals will be considered final.
However, if the Tribunal may act without jurisdiction, or fails to exercise its authority, or if a Tribunal’s order is arbitrary or mala fide, or violates natural justice principles, or contains obvious errors, or violates the statute, it can be overturned by the High Court or Supreme Court.
CONCLUSION
Though the idea and operation of Tribunals and Quasi-Judicial Bodies is still new in our nation, it is clear that in the current situation, administration has become an essential component of both the government and the citizens. Because of this growing role, it is critical to develop a competent authority for the resolution of people’s concerns and the adjudication of disputes. As a result, the notion of Administrative Tribunals evolved and is rapidly gaining traction in India, despite certain shortcomings. The Administrative Tribunal plays an essential role in providing individuals with timely and professional adjudication. It also assists the Court in lowering its burden by providing an alternate structure with the same level of power and duty.
