TRIBUNAL REFORMS BILL

CONTEXT:

• Recently, the Centre government has defended in the Supreme Court the validity of the new tribunal reforms law, which regulates the issues such as appointment and tenure of presiding and other members in tribunals.

 

 

What are tribunals?

• The Tribunals is a quasi-judicial institution set up to deal with the issues such as resolving administrative or tax-related disputes.
• It performs many functions such as:

1. Resolving disputes
2.  Determining rights between opposing parties
3. Making administrative decisions
4.  Reviewing existing decisions to govern and so on.

 

Constitutional Provisions:

• 42^nd Constitutional Amendment Act introduces  the provisions related to tribunals  on the  recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee.
• The amendment introduces Part XIV-A in the Constitution, which deals with ‘courts’ and contains two articles:
• Article 323A deals with administrative courts. These are judicial institutions that resolve disputes related to employment and the conditions of service of public servants.
• Article 323B deals with the courts of other jurisdictions such as Tax, industrial and labour, Foreign Exchange, Import and Export, Land Reform, Food, Urban Roofing, Elections in Parliament and State Legislatures, Employment and Employment Rights.

 

 

The Bill

• The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 has replaced the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.
• The Bill has abolished five appellate tribunals which are the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, Airports Appellate Tribunal, Authority for Advanced Rulings, Intellectual Property Appellate Board and the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal.
• The Bill has also proposed some changes in the terms of service of the tribunal officials.
• As per the proposed change the Chairpersons and the Members of the judiciary are terminated with compensation equal to 3 months’ salary and benefits for their early termination.

 

 

Key features of the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021:

• Dissolution of Existing Bodies:  The Bill dissolve certain appellate bodies and transfer their functions to other existing judicial bodies.
• Merging of Existing Bodies: The Finance Act, 2017 merged tribunals based on domain. For example,  The Competition Appellate Tribunal has been merged with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
• Search-cum-selection Committees:  Based on the recommendation of these committees the Chairperson and Members of the Tribunals will be appointed by the Central government.
• Term of Office: The Bill provides for a four-year term of office (subject to the upper age limit of 70 years for the Chairperson, and 67 years for members).
• Eligibility: The Bill also eligibility  for appointment of a chairperson or a member with  minimum age requirement of 50 years .
• Removal:  On the recommendation of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, the central government shall remove from office any Chairperson or a Member.

 

 

 

Supreme Court ruling on the Bill:

The Bill has sought to undo the judgment of the Apex Court wrt to the following provisions: 

1. The minimum age requirement of 50 years still finds a place in the Bill. 
2. The tenure for the Chairperson and the members of the tribunal remains four years. 
3. The recommendation of two names for each post by the Search-cum-Selection Committee . 
4. It held that such conditions are violative of the principles of separation of powers, independence of judiciary, rule of law and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 

 

Other issues raised by the Supreme Court:

• Understaffed: The apex court recently expressed its discontentment over the functioning of tribunals in the country because several of these important quasi-judicial bodies are understaffed. 

• Unconstitutional Violations: There was no discussion of the bill, and the government re-enacted the same principles as those overturned by the Court in the case of the Madras Bar Association (2021).
• Violations of SC Orders: The Center does not follow repeated instructions issued by the Court to ensure the proper functioning of the Courts. The provisions of the Act relating to the conditions of service and the appointment of Councilors and the Chairperson have been overturned by the High Court.
• Security of Tenure: The Bill prohibits the appointment of persons to the courts of persons under the age of 50 years.
• Undermines the Separation of powers:  Section 3 (7) of the bill authorizes the recommendation of a two-word panel by the search-cum selection committee in the union government violating the principles of separation of powers and legal independence.
• Vacancies in Courts: India now has 16 courts including the National Green Tribunal which suffers from disability. The presence of a large number of vacancies for Members and Chairpersons and excessive delays have led to the weakening of the courts.
• Lack of expertise: Lack of expertise in ordinary courts can disrupt the decision-making process.
• Lacuna in the Bill: The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) only heard decisions that contradicted the decisions of the review board, which requires expertise in the arts and cinemas.
• Overburden of judiciary: Indian courts are already heavily burdened with their existing cases.

 

 

 

Way Forward

• Independence of the Tribunal: Unless steps are taken in compliance with the law laid down by SC for tribunals, neither their independence nor their ability to reduce the burden on the regular judiciary can be guaranteed.
• Independent Authority for Administration: SC has ruled that tribunals cannot be made to function under the ministries against which they are to pass orders and they must be placed under the law ministry instead. Therefore, there is need to ensure the separate and independent authority for administration of the tribunals is required.
• Easing Pressure on Constitutional Courts:  In order to remove burden on Supreme Court and to make justice affordable and accessible, it needs to be ensure the efficient functioning of the tribunal.
• Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can be allowed to focus more on constitutional points of law of general public importance, Centre-state/inter-state disputes or where there is a major conflict between decisions of two or more high courts.

 

Conclusion

 A reform to the tribunal system in India will be helpful remedy to the old age problems that still cripples the Indian judicial system such as judicial delay and backlog. In this context, an independent autonomous body such as a National Tribunals Commission (NTC), responsible for oversight as well as administration, can go a long way in remedying issues that plague the functioning of tribunals.