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 tribunals in India (2018)
Based on 49 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.
What most aspirants missed
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): tribunals are substitutes, not supplants; HC writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be excluded
- Articles 323A and 323B, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, as the constitutional basis for tribunals
- Article 136 (SC special leave) and Article 227 (HC superintendence) as safeguards showing courts retain supervisory power
- Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019) on Finance Act 2017 and tribunal independence
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) on Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 and the need for a National Tribunals Commission
- Concrete examples of competency and curtailment: CAT for service matters, NCLT for company law, NGT for environment
Common mistakes
- Claiming ordinary courts have no appellate or writ role over tribunals, which is incorrect given Articles 226, 227 and 136
- Treating the 'how far' demand as descriptive and not taking a clear position in the conclusion
- Listing Articles 323A and 323B in the introduction and repeating them in the validity section without any judgment
- Discussing tribunal competency without examples or comparison with ordinary courts
What the better answers did
- Explicitly stating a partial agreement and tying it to the exclusion of jurisdiction in specific statutes
- Using L. Chandra Kumar as the central precedent for validity and judicial review
- Citing CAT, NCLT and NGT as concrete examples of specialised competency
- Ending with a conclusion that answers the question directly and balances efficiency with the authority of courts
Introduction
Open by stating that tribunals were created under Articles 323A and 323B to relieve courts of specialised disputes, and that the real question is whether they exclude or only supplement court jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Conclude with a clear position: tribunals curtail court jurisdiction only in defined specialised fields, and Articles 136, 226 and 227 preserve the supervisory role of constitutional courts.
Model answer
Tribunals were set up to take specialised and backlogged disputes away from courts. Articles 323A (administrative tribunals) and 323B (tax, labour, land reforms and other matters), inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976), enable their creation. They curtail ordinary courts only partly: they take over defined streams of cases, but their decisions remain open to constitutional review. Hence I partly agree.
Where curtailment is real
- Statutes such as the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (s.28) bar civil courts from hearing service matters, with the Supreme Court as the appellate forum.
- NCLT handles company law, NGT handles environmental disputes, and SAT hears securities appeals, shifting work away from civil courts.
Constitutional validity and limits
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): tribunals are substitutes, not supplants, of High Courts. Exclusion of High Court writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is unconstitutional, and Supreme Court jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 136 remains.
- Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010): the National Tax Tribunal was struck down, showing that tribunal design is open to scrutiny.
Competency and independence
- Tribunals like CAT and NGT bring subject expertise, but are weak on constitutional questions.
- Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019) struck down Finance Act, 2017 provisions on tenure and appointments as violating separation of powers.
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) struck down parts of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and urged a National Tribunals Commission.
Tribunals reduce pendency but cannot oust the constitutional courts. Articles 136, 226 and 227 act as safety valves, so the curtailment is limited to specialised fields and does not replace ordinary courts.
Write this answer and get it evaluated
Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start with the ₹49 Trial.
Evaluate my answerMore GS Paper 2 questions
- Public charitable trusts have the potential to make India's development more inclusive as they relate to certain vital public issues. Comment.
- Poverty and malnutrition create a vicious cycle, adversely affecting human capital formation. What steps can be taken to break the cycle?
- In dealing with socio-economic issues of development, what kind of collaboration between government, NGOs and private sector would be most productive?
- 'Constitutional Morality' is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of 'Constitutional Morality' with the help of relevant judicial decisions.
- Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to the one-nation-one-election principles?
- Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. Comment.
