STATUTORY, REGULATORY AND VARIOUS QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES

Statutory Bodies

Statutory bodies are established by acts which Parliament and State Legislatures can pass. These
bodies are entities shaped by an Act of Parliament or state legislatures and set up by the government
to consider the data and make judgments in some arena of activity. Basically, a statutory body is an
organisation of government which is not demarcated in Constitution of India but it gets its powers,
service rules, authority by an act of parliament or state legislatures. They are generally established to
perform specific functions which a government considers effectively performed outside a traditional
departmental executive structure. They fulfil the requirement for some operational independence
from the government; funding arrangements that are not dependent on the annual appropriations
processes; or to establish a separate legal body. Statutory bodies are normally set up in countries
which are ruled under parliamentary democracy form of political setup. Under law, statutory bodies
are organisations with the authority to monitor that the activities of a business and check whether
these institutions are legal and follow official rules. For example, the General Medical Council is the
statutory body which regulates doctors.

The statutory bodies may be established to permit a certain level of independence from government,
the government is still accountable to guarantee that taxpayers funds expended in the operations of
statutory bodies are spent in the most, effective and economic way. These bodies are subject to
varying degrees of ministerial control which are identified in the statutory body’s enabling legislation.
Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the operation of all government boards and agencies
within their portfolios, and are necessary to table their annual reports in Parliament. A state
representatives have authority for many reasons such as transparency, accountability, effectiveness,
and bipartisanship.

The meaning of a ‘statutory body’ may change depending upon the legislation. For example, a local
council is not a statutory body for the purposes of the Financial Accountability Act, but it is for the
purposes of the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act. All statutory bodies are established
and operate under the provisions of their own enabling legislation, which sets out the purpose and
specific powers of the agency. The enabling legislation may also include provisions for the levels of
fees to be charged for services / products provided by the statutory body, the power of the statutory
body to borrow or invest funds, whether the board can delegate powers to officers of the statutory
body and whether the body represents the State .

The example of statuary body is The University Grants Commission, a statutory organization
established by an Act of Parliament in 1956 for the coordination, determination and maintenance of
standards of university education. Apart from providing grants to eligible universities and colleges,
the Commission also recommends the Central and State Governments on the measures which are
necessary for the development of Higher Education. It functions from New Delhi as well as its six
Regional offices located in Bangalore, Bhopal, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Pune.

Important Statutory Bodies:

 National Human Rights Commission

 National Commission for Women

 National Commission for Minorities

 National Commission for Backward Classes

  National Law Commission

 National Green Tribunal

 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 Armed Forces Tribunal

Statutory Bodies in Governance

 Statutory bodies are established by acts of Parliament or State Legislatures concerned.

 Statutory bodies are non-constitutional bodies which make rules and regulations and take
the decision on behalf of the government.

 As these bodies are established by the act, it derives its powers, functions, duties from the
respective act.

 Statutory bodies are established to perform specific tasks. These are sector specific and
lessen the burden on the government.

 Government may grant a certain level of independence in its functioning, appointment of

members. Though the government may grant independence and autonomy to these bodies,
the government needs to ensure financial prudence in its functioning.

 Statutory bodies are subject to varying degrees of ministerial control which are identified in
the statutory body’s enabling legislation. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the
operation of all government agencies within their ministry and are necessary to table their
annual reports in Parliament.

 The meaning of Statutory bodies may change depending upon the legislation. For example, a
local council is not a Statutory body for the purposes of the Financial Accountability Act, but
it is for the purposes of the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act.

 All statutory bodies are established and operate under the provisions of their own enabling
legislation, which sets out the purpose and specific powers of the agency.

 Examples: National Human Rights Commission, National Green tribunal, Medical Council of
India, University Grants Commission etc.

Regulatory Body

A regulatory body also called regulatory agency is a public authority or a government agency which is
accountable for exercising autonomous authority over some area of human activity in a regulatory or
supervisory capacity. It is established by legislative act in order to set standards in a specific field of
activity, or operations, in the private sector of the economy and to then implement those standards.
Regulatory interventions function outside executive observation. Because the regulations that they
adopt have the force of law, part of these agencies’ function is essentially legislative; but because
they may also conduct hearings and pass judgments concerning adherence to their regulations, they
also exercise a judicial function often performed before a quasi-judicial official called an
administrative law judge, who is not part of the court system. Some independent regulatory agencies
perform investigations or audits, and some are authorised to fine the important parties and order
certain measures.
The notion of the regulatory agency was initiated in the USA and it has been basically an American
establishment. The first agency was Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), established by Congress
in 1887 to control the railroads. It was stopped in 1996 but long served as the model of such an
agency. Initially, the ICC was to serve only as an advisory body to Congress and the courts, but it was
soon granted these powers itself. Furthermore, an independent commission could be unbiased and
nonpartisan, a necessity for impartial regulation. The ICC was the first step taken to control industries
instead of taking each on a case-by-case basis, as had been previously done.

The proclamation of governmental control in other industries led to the formation of many other
regulatory agencies modelled upon the ICC, chief among these being the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC, 1914), Federal Communications Commission (FCC, 1934), and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC, 1934). Additionally, regulatory powers were convened upon the ordinary executive
departments. The functions of the FTC illustrate those of regulatory agencies in general. It supervises
the packaging, labelling, and advertising of consumer goods. It applies broadly stated legislative
policies to concrete cases of trade competition by a procedure patterned after that of the courts. It
grants licenses to those interested in export business. It also regulates collection and circulation of
credit information. Regulatory agencies use a commission system of administration, and their terms
of office are fixed and often very long.

All nations outside the USA, the role of regulatory agencies is taken by the regular administrative
departments of government and, in the case of utilities and public transportation, often by means of
state ownership. Regulatory agencies are generally a part of the executive branch of the government,
or they have statutory authority to execute their functions with oversight from the legislative branch.
Their actions are generally open to legal review. Regulatory authorities are usually established to
implement standards and safety, or to oversee use of public goods and regulate business.

Important Regulatory bodies are as under:

 Advertising Standards Council of India

 Competition Commission of India

 Biodiversity authority of India

 Press council of India

 Directorate General of Civil Aviation

 Forward Markets Commission

 Inland Waterways Authority of India

 Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority

 Reserve Bank of India

 Securities and Exchange Board of India

 Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal

 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

 The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)

 Central pollution control board

  Financial Stability and Development Council

 Medical Council of India

 Pension fund regulatory and development authority

Establishing Regulatory Bodies for Effective Governance

 The notion of the regulatory agency was initiated in the USA and it has been basically an
American establishment. The first agency was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),
established by Congress in 1887 to control the railroads.

 Regulatory bodies also called a regulatory agency is a public authority or a government

agency which is accountable for exercising autonomous authority over some area of human
activity in a regulatory or supervisory capacity.

 Regulatory agencies are generally a part of the executive branch of the government or they
have statutory authority to execute their functions with oversight from the legislative branch.

 Their activities are generally scrutinized by the legislature. Regulatory authorities are usually
established to implement standards and safety, or to oversee use of public goods and
regulate business.

 Regulatory bodies, independent governmental bodies established by legislative act in order

to set standards in a specific field of activity, or operations, in the private sector of the
economy and then to enforce those standards.

 Regulatory agencies function outside direct executive supervision. Because the regulations
that they adopt have the force of law, part of these agencies’ function is essentially
legislative; but because they may also conduct hearings and pass judgments concerning
adherence to their regulations, they also exercise a judicial function – often carried out
before a quasi-judicial official called an administrative law judge, who is not part of the court
system.

 Regulatory agencies became popular means of promoting fair trade and consumer
protection problems of commerce and trade became more complex

 Several risks are involved in the absence of a regulatory system. The main risks of not
regulating are:

 Excessive tariff

 Inadequate service level and quality

 Non-compliance of contractual obligations to users, government or other parties

 Low efficiency in production and in the provision of goods and services

 Inadequate level of investment in the sector

 Frequent discontent between the parties involved

Key Functions of Regulatory Bodies in Governance

 Protection of public interest

 Monitoring compliance with contractual obligations to the government and users, and other
legal and regulatory requirements

 Establishing technical, safety and quality standards and monitoring their compliance

 Imposing penalties for non-compliance

 Administering tariff adjustments and periodic reviews

 Establishing accounting standards and undertaking operator’s cost and performance analysis

 Facilitating dispute resolution between parties

 Providing advice and counsel to government on policy matters and other related matters to
private sector involvement in the sector

Challenges Faced by Regulatory Bodies in Governance

 Regulatory sprawl: In India there are a total 60 regulatory bodies at the Centre and state
level. In the name of specialization excessive regulatory bodies have been created. This has
created complexity in day to day operations.

 Ineffective functioning: Regulatory bodies have failed to fulfill their basic duties. They are
continuously failing to meet the benchmarks. Example: Failure of RBI to curb the menace of
NPAs

 Overlapping of functions: Government’s failure to demarcate functions of regulatory bodies

has created overlapping of functions. This creates not only confusion among these bodies
but also becomes reasons for conflict. It also hampers Ease of Doing
Business. Example: There is overlapping of functions in CVC and CBI, RBI and SEBI.

 Issue of autonomy: Regulatory bodies lack autonomy as the members of the regulatory
bodies are appointed by the government. Thus, nepotism or favoritism cannot be ruled out.

 No regular audit: Audits of regulatory bodies have never been prioritized by the government.
As these bodies do not face regular audits, they have become involved in corruption.
Example: Medical Council of India.

 Failure to protect the environment: There are many regulatory bodies in the field of
environment, but these are little achievements to count on. Example: CPCB has failed to curb
air pollution, river pollution. NGT is also failing to deliver judgments on time.

 Financial problems: All the regulatory bodies are dependent on budgetary resources for their
day to day functioning. Government through the budgetary provisions interferes in the
functioning of these bodies.

 Vacancies and lack of expertise: Regulatory bodies are generally under-staffed and they also
lack expertise. Most of the time, IAS officers are appointed to these bodies. These officers
are not specialists and lack even basic skills to deal with the matters of these bodies.
Proposed Solutions for Regulatory Bodies Challenges

 Uniform appointment procedure, term of office, tenure across all regulatory bodies.

 Budgets of these bodies should be charged upon the Consolidated Funds of India.

 Establish Regulator of Regulators as recommended by Punchhi Commission.

 Parliament should review the functioning of the regulatory bodies

 At least to start with, the central government can create a single regulatory body for the
financial sector by keeping RBI as a separate body looking at the nature of its work.

 Many countries have adopted techniques like “Regulatory Impact Assessments”. India can
also mandate such techniques through legislation and thereby preserve economic value.

 Genuine functional autonomy would also have to be reinforced with financial autonomy by
putting in place a system where regulatory organisations are not dependent on government
departments for financial support.

 The appointment of persons to head regulatory organisations should be attempted in a far

more transparent manner.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies:

Quasi-judicial bodies are institutes which have powers analogous to that of the law imposing bodies
but these are not courts. They primarily oversee the administrative zones. The courts have the power
to supervise over all types of disputes but the quasi-judicial bodies are the ones with the powers of
imposing laws on administrative agencies. These bodies support to lessen the burden of the courts.
Quasi-judicial activity is restricted to the issues that concern the particular administrative agency.
Quasi-judicial action may be appealed to a court of law.

These organizations generally have authorities of settlement in matters like breach of discipline,
conduct rules, and trust in the matters of money or otherwise. Their powers are usually limited to a
particular area of expertise, such as financial markets, employment laws, public standards,
immigration, or regulation.

Awards and judgements of a quasi-judicial bodies often depend on a pre-determined set of rules or
punishment depending on the nature and gravity of the offence committed. Such punishment may
be legally enforceable under the law of a country, it can be challenged in a court of law which is the
final vital authority.

Important quasi-judicial bodies in India are as under:

 National Human Rights Commission

 State Human Rights Commission

 Central Information Commission

 State Information Commission

 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

  Competition Commission of India

 Appellate Tribunal for Electricity

 State Electricity Regulatory Commission

 Railway Claims Tribunal

 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

 Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal

 Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

 Banking Ombudsman

 Insurance Ombudsman

 Income tax Ombudsman

 Electricity Ombudsman

 State Sales tax Appellate Tribunal

A Quasi-Judicial Body is an entity such as an arbitrator or a tribunal, generally of a Public

Administrative Agency, which has powers and procedures resembling that of a Court of Law or
Judge, and which is obliged to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them so as
to provide the basis of an official action.

A Quasi-Judicial Body has also been defined as “an organ of Government other than a Court or
Legislature, which affects the rights of private parties either through adjudication or rulemaking”.

It is not necessary that a Quasi-Judicial Body has to be a Court of Law, such as the National Green
Tribunal.

For example, the Election Commission of India is also a Quasi-Judicial Body but does not have its
core functions as a Court of Law. The Finance Commission is also a quasi-judicial body but does
not perform functions of court of law.

Awards and judgements of quasi-judicial bodies often depend on a predetermined set of rules or
punishment depending on the nature and gravity of the offence committed. Such punishment
may be legally enforceable under the law of a country, it can be challenged in a court of law
which is the final vital authority.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies Examples

 Election Commission of India

 Finance Commission

 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

 Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal, etc.

Reasons for Emergence of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India

 Normal courts of law have become costly over the years. Where quasi-judicial bodies offer
cost effective solutions.

 In quasi-judicial bodies, the principle of natural justice is followed. This ensures speedy
justice.

 As the State grew in size and functions, the burden on its functions, especially those of the
judicial system increased manifold. Therefore, the need for an alternative judicial system
arose.

 As the technological advances have outpaced all sectors, it requires expertise to deal with
the matters. Normal courts lack such expertise and such courts may commit error while
giving final verdicts.

 Quick, hassle free and cost-effective delivery of justice.

 Need of domain and subject expertise, such as taxation.

Types of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India

 Administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions, whether as part of their respective

departments or otherwise.

 Administrative adjudicatory bodies which are outside the control of the department involved
in the disputes and hence decide disputes like a Judge, free from bias. For example:
Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal.

 Tribunals constituted under Article 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution, enjoy the
powers and status of a High Court.

 Departmental bodies exercising inherent judicial powers of the State, wherein they perform
functions pertaining to control, composition and procedure, constituted under Article 136,
can also be classified as tribunals.

Advantages of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India

 Lessen the burden of judiciary: Tribunals while taking up specific matters, majorly help by
sharing the massive workload of the Judiciary. In a country which has 3 crore pending cases,
it is important to take steps to decrease the burden of the Judiciary.

 Simplicity: Tribunals and other such bodies do not follow any lengthy or complex procedure
for submitting application or evidence etc. These bodies follow the principle of natural
justice.

 Low Cost: In the conventional judicial process, a large section of the populace for the fear of
expenditure, may hesitate from approaching the Courts, thus defeating the purpose of
justice. Tribunals on the other hand, have an overall low cost which encourages people to
seek redressal for their grievances.

 Expert Knowledge: A tribunal comprises experts, who can easily understand the
technicalities of a case, the necessary actions involved and their consequences.
  Accessibility: These are easily accessible to common people and offer very cost effective
solutions.

 Suo-Motu powers: Some of these bodies have suo-motu powers to initiate the proceedings.
Example-NHRC can initiate actions based on reports from media or otherwise.

Challenges of Quasi-Judicial Bodies

 Pseudo independence: These bodies lack real independence from the executive as they are
dependent on the government for finances, man power, investigating agencies,
infrastructure etc.

 Lack of human resource: Many quasi-judicial bodies are either under-staffed or lack
expertise.

 Lack of enforcement: The verdicts of these bodies can be challenged in high courts and
supreme court. Thus, such cases again pass through the hierarchy of courts. This delays
justice.

IMPORTANT BODIES

National Green Tribunal: Establishment and Jurisdiction

 The National Green Tribunal has been established on 18.10.2010 under the National Green
Tribunal Act 2010 for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental
protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of
any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to
persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

 The NGT has the power to hear all civil cases relating to environmental issues and questions
that are linked to the implementation of laws listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act. These
include the following:

o The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

o The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;

o The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

o The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;

o The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;

o The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;

o The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

National Green Tribunal Challenges

 The NGT does not have jurisdiction under Wildlife Protection Act (1972), Indian Forest Act
1927, Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights Act) and various other state legislations.
  NGT Act specifies that the compensation amount as ordered by the tribunal should be
deposited to the Environmental Relief Fund within a period of 30 days. But the parties
involved don’t abide by this rule.

 Technical members are generally appointed from the generalist cadre. They lack expertise
and knowledge and issues of favoritism can not be ruled out.

 Given the current state of the NGT, it is reasonable to claim that the multiple objectives of
access to justice, efficiency, cost-efficiency, and protection of the environment through the
NGT Act, have been defeated.

 The NGT orders are more often challenged in the Supreme Court, where a heavy penalty has
been imposed by the tribunal. Such cases defeat the very purpose of NGT. There is no
institutional mechanism to ensure that the environmental regulatory authorities comply with
the orders of the tribunal.

 The NGT has very few regional benches considering the expanse of the country.

 The Act is silent on the provision that who is liable to pay compensation or cost of damage to
public health or environment.

Suggestions for National Green Tribunal Enhancement

 Appointment of Experts: It should be ensured that only expert members are appointed to
the NGT.

 Implementation of Decisions: The decisions of the Tribunal should be respected and

implemented by all stakeholders.

 Providing Proper Support: In order to be able to entertain petitions and prevent frivolous
environmental litigations, the National Green Tribunal should be equipped with all the
resources required for scrutinizing and reviewing petitions and investigating the intentions of
petitioners.

 Synergy with the Supreme Court: Its function should be more transparent than the Supreme
Court’s in environmental cases. More importantly, the procedures of PIL should be
institutionalized with guidelines in place for emphasizing the conditions under which the
tribunal can entertain or reject a petition seeking its attention.

 The National Green Tribunal could play a particularly significant role in the context of
proposed reforms regarding the structure of environmental governance and the emergence
of active environmental groups in the country.

 Proper Legal Framework: The legal framework also needs to be comprehensive and suitably
designed for objective interpretation of environmental laws and policies.

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

 The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) owes its origin to the Delhi Special Police
Establishment, established in 1941, to investigate cases of corruption in the procurement
during the Second World War.

 Later, based on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of

Corruption, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was established by a resolution of the
 Ministry of Home Affairs. Later, it was transferred to the Ministry of Personnel And now it
enjoys the status of an attached office.

 The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not a Statutory body. It derives its powers from
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is
the main investigating agency of the Central Government.

Challenges with Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

 Constitutional conflict: Since police is a State subject under the Constitution, and the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) acts as per the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC), which makes it a police agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
needs the consent of the State government in question before it can make its presence in
that State. This is a cumbersome procedure and has led to some ridiculous situations.

 Political interference: due to it being under the control of the central government with the
latter having immense control over its functioning, often allegations of political misuse of the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) have been there.

 Constitutional status: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) enjoys great power over the
investigative machinery of the country, yet it derives its origin from DPSE Act, 1946 and the
MHA resolution of 1963 which puts its constitutional status on shaky ground. Guwahati High
Court in 2013 termed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) unconstitutional which was later
stayed by the Supreme Court.

 Dependence on Various Ministries: The agency is dependent on the home ministry for
staffing, since many of its investigators come from the Indian Police Service. The agency
depends on the law ministry for lawyers and also lacks functional autonomy to some extent.

 Dependence on State: Generally, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) needs consent of

states to start any investigation, and recently many states like West Bengal, Maharashtra
have withdrawn their general consent to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Thus, in such
cases the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) needs consent of states on each and every
case.

 Credibility crisis due to recent happenings.

Problems, and Measures for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Problems Measures

Legislative loopholes: Committee suggestions:

1. Its functions are based merely on a 1. The Second ARC (2007) also suggested that “a new
government resolution that draws its law should be enacted to govern the working of the
powers from the DPSE Act 1946. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)”.

2. Its dependence on State governments’ 2. The Parliamentary Standing Committees (2007 and
approval for investigation in certain cases 2008) recommended that “the need of the hour is to
also is a concern. strengthen the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in
terms of legal mandate, infrastructure and resources”.

3. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be

vested with the required legal mandate and pan-India
 jurisdiction and must have powers to investigate
corruption cases against officers of All India Services
irrespective of the state they are serving.

Administrative Hurdles: Manpower strengthening:

1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) 1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should
does not have its own cadre and is run by develop its own cadre of officers who are not hindered
officers on deputation which makes them by deputation issues and abrupt transfers.
prone to manipulation by the government 2. The manpower of the Central Bureau of Investigation
of the day. (CBI) should be enhanced for effective and timely
2. Additionally, lack of sufficient manpower investigation.
often leads to delay in solving cases. 3. The service conditions for direct recruitment to the
3. Internal conflicts such as the recent one Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) can be improved
between Director and Special Director and to attract a wider talent pool.
their public allegations against each other 4. The process of direct recruitment through UPSC
are a serious concern. which was stopped in 2000 can be restarted.

· Overlapping jurisdictions: There is an

· The anti-corruption wings of Central Bureau of
overlap in jurisdictions of CVC, Central
Investigation (CBI) and CVC can be brought under
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Lokpal in
Lokpal which should utilize both the organisations for
certain cases leading to problems. In
investigation and prosecution. Such an integrated setup
corruption cases the rates of conviction are
would lead to a more potent body.
just 3%.

· Political Pressure: The Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) has often been criticized · It should be granted more autonomy by making it
as acting at the government’s behest. In accountable only to the Parliament like the office of
2013, the Supreme Court called it a “caged CAG.
parrot speaking in its master’s voice”.

· There has been suggestion from an information

commissioner that agencies like NIA, Central Bureau of
· Lack of Transparency: Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), IB and paramilitary forces should
Investigation (CBI) is exempt from the
come under the purview of RTI as there are adequate
provisions of the RTI Act of 2005
safeguards in the Act to keep sensitive information
outside the public domain.

Lack of Transparency in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Operations and RTI Act Exemption

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is exempt from the provisions of the RTI Act of 2005. There
has been a suggestion from an information commissioner that agencies like NIA, Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), IB and paramilitary forces should come under the purview of RTI as there are
adequate safeguards in the Act to keep sensitive information outside the public domain.

Invalidity of Provision Requiring Prior Permission for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
 Investigation

 The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is required to obtain the prior approval of the
Central Government before conducting any inquiry or investigation into an offence
committed by officers of the rank of joint secretary and above in the Central Government
and its authorities.

 However, on May 6, 2014, the Supreme Court held as invalid the legal provision that makes
prior sanction mandatory for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a probe
against senior bureaucrats in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

 A Constitution Bench held that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
which granted protection to joint secretary and above officers from facing even a preliminary
inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in corruption cases, was violative of
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 14 states that, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

Jurisdictional Differences: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vs State Police

Primarily, State Police are responsible to maintain law and order in the state. Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) may investigate:

 Cases which are essentially against central govt employees or concerning affairs of the
Central govt.

 Cases in which the financial interests of the central government are involved.

 Cases relating to the breaches of central laws with the enforcement of which the GoI is
mainly concerned.

 Big cases of fraud, cheating, embezzlement and similar other cases when committed by
organized gangs or professional criminals having ramifications in several States.

Difference between Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and NIA

Sr
CBI NIA
.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) mainly deals NIA is a terrorism investigation
with internal issues of corruption, botched up organization. It sole job is to investigate
1.
investigations by State and local policies, extremely acts of terrorism and possible acts of
high religious and communal sensitive investigations. terrorism.

NIA made headlines when it started to

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is quite a crack down the ring of terrorist cells in
2.
massive organization spread across the country. West Bengal. NIA is much smaller than
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

3. For some State Governments Central Bureau of NIA has a lot of power that overrides
Investigation (CBI) had to take “General Consent” State government and even human right
laws. Hence, while it was being formed,
 NIA faced a lot of protest.

SC Directives for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Autonomy (Vineet Narain v. Union of India,
1997)

The landmark judgment in Vineet Narain v. Union of India in 1997 laid out several steps to secure the
autonomy of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

SC Directives for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Autonomy

 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director shall have a “minimum tenure of two years,
regardless of the date of his superannuation”.

 the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) “shall be responsible for the efficient functioning of
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)”.

 The CVC chief shall be selected by a panel comprising the prime minister, home minister and
the leader of the opposition from a panel of “outstanding civil servants”.

 Most importantly, the Vineet Narain judgement stated that the “transfer of an incumbent
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an extraordinary situation, including the
need for him to take up a more important assignment, should have the approval of the
selection committee”

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)s Alleged Politicization: The “Caged Parrot” Controversy

 Politicization of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been a work in progress for
years.

 Corruption and politically biased: This was highlighted in Supreme Court criticism for being a
caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice.

 The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been accused of becoming ‘handmaiden’ to the
party in power, as a result high profile cases are not treated seriously.

 Since the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is run by central police officials on deputation
hence chances of getting influenced by the government was visible in the hope of better
future postings.

Reforming Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): Key Suggestions

 New Central Law: A comprehensive new central law should govern the working of the
institutions.

 Special Public Prosecutor: The law should specifically provide for appointment of a special
public prosecutor who will have full independence to deal with the politically and nationally
sensitive cases and take a stand safeguarding public interest.

 A high-level governing board should be set up for the CBI in which, apart from the prime
minister and union home minister, four-five chief ministers of states may be appointed, by
turn, to give broad guidelines and keep a watch over the working of the CBI.
  Right to Information: These organisations should be brought fully under the Right to
Information law and information related to all cases except ongoing cases and cases of
national security importance should be made available under RTI.

 Fixed Term and no reappointment: The directors should have a fixed term of three years.
After retirement, the director should be made ineligible for any appointment by the Central
and state governments.

 Accountability to Parliament: Like Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG),

parliamentary oversight would ensure better accountability, reduce chances of political
misuse, and increase its credibility.

 Dedicated cadre: Dedicated officers of its own without depending upon deputations. CVC
provides for tenure stability of 2 years which must be respected for transparent and
independent investigations as well.

Committee Recommendations for Strengthening CBI

 The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) also suggested that “a new law
should be enacted to govern the working of the CBI”.

 The Parliamentary Standing Committees (2007 and 2008) recommended that “the need of
the hour is to strengthen the CBI in terms of legal mandate, infrastructure and resources.

 CBI should be vested with the required legal mandate and pan-India jurisdiction and must
have powers to investigate corruption cases against officers of All India Services irrespective
the state they are serving.

The Role and Functioning of the Finance Commission

 Article 280 of the constitution of India provides for a Finance Commission.

 It acts as a quasi-judicial

 Constituted by the President of India every fifth year or at such earlier time as he considers
necessary.

 The First Finance Commission was constituted vide Presidential Order dated 22.11.1951
under the chairmanship of Shri K.C. Neogy on 6th April, 1952.

 The Constitution of India envisages the Finance commission as the “balancing wheel of fiscal
federalism in India”.

 Till 2014, the role of finance commission in the Centre-state fiscal relations was undermined
by the erstwhile Planning Commission (non-constitutional and a non-statutory body).

Issues and Recommendations for the Finance Commission

 Mere an Advisory Body: The recommendations made by the Finance Commission are only of
advisory nature and hence, not binding on the government. There is a need to amend the
constitution and make the recommendations of the Finance Commission binding on the
center as well as the states.

 State Finance Commissions (SFCs): States have not been setting up their State Finance
Commissions every five years as mandated by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act.
 Therefore, it is the necessity of SFCs to rationalize and systematize State/sub-state fiscal
relations in India.

 Continuity of the Finance Commission: A permanent status to the Finance Commission and
a robust expenditure planning is the need of the hour. This is required, in view of the fiscal
management requirements of the States, especially given the absence of mid-term reviews
of awards granted by the Finance Commission.

 Public Sector Borrowing Requirement: It is defined as borrowing by not just Central and
State governments but also by all public sector corporations and agencies. This consolidated
figure will more or less put an end to the manipulation of the fiscal deficit by the
government. The main issue is the increasing orientation of State governments’ borrowing
from markets, improving secondary market liquidity and cash management.

 Factors driving fiscal slippage: These factors include farm loan waivers and income support
schemes; rising outstanding debt as a percentage of GDP despite moderation in interest
payments as a percentage of revenue receipts.

Fiscal Federalism: Concepts and Historical Context

 Fiscal federalism can best be understood as the economic counterpart to political federalism.

 It is concerned with assigning functions to different levels of government, and providing

appropriate fiscal instruments for carrying out these functions.

 It is generally believed that the Central government should provide national public goods
that render services to the entire population while sub-national governments are expected
to provide goods and services whose consumption is limited to their own jurisdictions.

 Governments often find it difficult to determine the specific fiscal instruments that enable
the different levels of government to carry out their functions.

 However Indian Constitution lays down the functions as well as taxing powers of the Centre
and States providing clarity in financial relations shared by state and the centre.

Ripon tried to make local institutions self-reliant in the economic sector. In 1882,
with the help of his finance secretary Major Wering, Ripon divided the source of
income into three parts by a proposal:
Lord Ripon’s
Contribution 1. Imperial– Salt, Excise, Coast, and Laudanum tax were kept in it.

2. Provincial – Works related to education and public welfare were kept in this.

3. Divided Post– Land tax, forest, and stamp were kept in it.

GoI 1919 and GoI Formalized the tenets of fiscal federalism and revenue sharing between the
1935 Centre and the states

Finance
Envisaged in the Constitution as the key institution responsible for dealing with
Commission (Art.
fiscal imbalances between the center and states, as well as among the states.
280)

14th Chaired by Dr. Y V Reddy, recommended 42% devolution of revenue to the states
 Finance
Commission

Estb. in 2015, expected to address new realities of macroeconomic management

NITI Aayog
that were missed by the Planning Commission.

Introduced in 2017 to streamline India’s indirect tax structure as a measure to

Goods and
promote cooperative federalism in India, giving the states an enhanced role in
Services Tax
formulating and implementing the overhauled taxation system.

Challenges and Need for Reform in Fiscal Federalism

 Horizontal imbalances and rising regional inequalities – Replacing the Planning Commission
(which was mandated to give grants to the states as conditional transfers using the Gadgil-
Mukherjee formula) with NITI Aayog(Government think tank with no resources to dispense)
has reduced the policy outreach of government by relying only on single instrument of fiscal
federalism i.e. Finance commission.

 Vertical imbalance –In India’s fiscal federalism (three levels: Central Government, State
Governments and the elected Local Bodies) Central government has a far greater domain of
taxation. In India’s fiscal federalism, the central government has a far greater domain of
taxation Central Government collects around 60% of the total taxes, while its expenditure
responsibility is only 40% of the total public expenditure. Vertical imbalances can adversely
affect India’s urbanization, the quality of local public goods and thus further aggravating the
negative externalities for the environment and climate change.

 Post-Liberalization Imbalances – Market-based reform generates more inequality due to

unequal capacity among states for infrastructure development. The major challenge faced by
poorer states in the post reform period is to chase competitive infrastructure investment in
order to attract foreign capital investment.

 The terms of reference of the Finance Commission is decided unilaterally by the Central
government which leads to raising of various issues by state governments.

 Financial Deterioration of States – Per capita Revenue Deficit, Fiscal Deficit and Primary
Deficit of states have been growing at 27.05%, 11.53% and 61.85% respectively, indicating
financial deterioration of states and reflected by:

o Mounting debt burden on States

o Lack of scope for expansion in social and economic service.

o Lack of scope for capital investment

o The process of devolution of revenue becomes ineffective.

Role and Functioning of the Election Commission

 Election Commission of India is an independent constitutional body responsible for

administering the free and fair election system and process of both the Union and State
elections of India, in order to uphold the true spirit of democracy.
  Part XV, Article 324 – 329 deals with the powers, function, tenure, eligibility, etc. of the
commission and the members.

 Article 324 of the Indian Constitution provides for an independent Election Commission for
the ‘superintendence, direction and control of the electoral roll and conduct of the elections’
in India.

 Election Commission is an all India body that conducts the elections to:

o Parliament

o State Legislature

o Office of President

o Office of Vice President.

 Though in its inception it was a single member body from 1950 to 1989 and from 1990 to
1993, thereafter once again it became the multi-member body and has remained to cope
with the increased work of the Election Commission.

Challenges and Recommendations for the Election Commission

 Appointment and Removal of members of the EC: There is no ban on members of EC to get
further employment in any government. Thus nowadays it is becoming a perception that EC
is performing its functions independently. Also the chairman and members are appointed by
the executive instead of being a constitutional body. In 2015, the Law Commission
recommended a collegium comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the
Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.

 Discriminatory removal process: CEC is removed like a judge of the Supreme Court while
other members are removed by the president on the recommendations of CEC. In the case
of TN Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that
the CEC does not have a superior status and is nothing more than a ‘first amongst equals’. In
light of this interpretation, the Constitution should be amended to accord the same
protection from removal to the Election Commissioners, as is accorded to the CEC.

 De-registration of political parties: Under the Representation of People Act, 1951, the EC is
the registering authority for all political parties, which have been expressly provided under
Section 29A of the said Act but the power to register does not carry with it the ancillary
power of de-registering a political party. ECI should be vested with all powers to deregister
the non performing parties or fake parties.

 Enforceability of Model Code of Conduct: Model Code of Conduct lacks statutory backing
and ECI expects that political parties should follow the MCC in letter and spirit. But recently
there are numerous cases of violation of MCC. ECI lacks enforceability powers. In 2013, the
Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice recommended making
the MCC legally binding by adding it to the Representation of People Act, 1951.

 Issue over EVM: Though EVM has proved its capabilities ECI failed to address the concerns of
political parties over the EVM. This has widened the gap between ECI and political parties as
well as ECI and people.
It is imperative to restore trust in the Election Commission, for it is the guardian of elections in India,
the very foundation of Indian democracy.

Introduction to Administrative Tribunals in India

 A tribunal is a statutory, quasi-judicial body established in India by an Act of Parliament or

State Legislature to resolve disputes in speedy, cost effective and in efficient manner that are
brought before it.

 Tribunal performs a number of functions like adjudicating disputes, determining rights

between contesting parties, making an administrative decision, reviewing an existing
administrative decision and so forth.

Constitutional Basis of Administrative Tribunals in India

 Tribunals were not part of the original constitution.

 Added by 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 with a new Part XIV-A to the Constitution on
recommendation of Swaran Singh Committee. (Committee also recommended Fundamental
Duties)

 323-A – deals with Administrative Tribunals.

 323-B– deals with tribunals for other matters.

 Works on principle of natural justice, not abiding by civil procedure code.

 Members are drawn from Judicial and administrative streams.

 Chairpersons of tribunals accorded Status of judges of HC

 They enjoy some of the powers of a civil courte. issuing summons and allowing witnesses to
give evidence. Its decisions are legally binding on the parties, subject to appeal.

 In pursuance of the provisions in Article 323A, Parliament passed the Administrative Tribunal
Act, 1985, providing for all the matters falling within the clause (1) of Article 323-A.

 According to this Act, there must be a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at the centre and
a State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) at the state level for every state.

Utility and Advantages of Administrative Tribunals

 Flexibility in procedures – They are not restrained by rigid rules of procedure.

 Less Expensive – Setup to be less formal, less expensive, and a faster way to resolve disputes
than by using the traditional court system.

 Relief to Courts – The system also gives relief to ordinary courts of law, which are already
overburdened with numerous suits, tendencies and vacancies.

 Domain experts on a specialized subject – Reduces the time needed and thus costs.

 Diversity of subjects -They hear disputes related to the environment, armed forces, tax and
administrative issues.

 Providing speedy and inexpensive, effective justice to the aggrieved party.

Difference Between Court of Law and Tribunal

Administrative Tribunals and Ordinary Courts both deal with the disputes between the parties which
affects the rights of the subjects. However, the Administrative Tribunal is not a court.

Court of Law Tribunal

A court of law is a part of the traditional judicial An Administrative Tribunal is an agency created
system. by the statute and invested with judicial power.

The Tribunal is also known as the Quasi-judicial

The Civil Courts have judicial power to try all suits
body. Tribunals have the power to try cases of
of a civil nature unless the cognizance is expressly
special matter which are conferred on them by
barred.
statutes

Judges of the ordinary courts of law are

Tenure, terms and conditions of the services of
independent of the executive in respect of their
the members of Administrative Tribunal are
tenure, terms and conditions of service etc. The
entirely in the hands of the Executive.
Judiciary is independent of the Executive.

A court of law can decide vires of a legislation Administrative Tribunal cannot do so

A court of law is bound by all the rules of An Administrative Tribunal is not bound by rules
evidence and procedure. but bound by the principles of nature of Justice.

The president or a member of the Tribunal may

The presiding officer of the court of law is trained
not be trained as well in law. He may be an
in law and legal profession.
expert in the field of Administrative matters.

Decisions by the Administrative Tribunal may be

Court must decide all questions objectively on subjective rather than objective. Administrative
the basis of evidence and materials on record. Tribunal may decide questions by taking into
account departmental policy.

Challenges and Issues Faced by Administrative Tribunals

 Violation of Doctrine of Separation of Powers – Tribunal is not a court of law and is controlled
and manned by the members of Judiciary and Executive which allows the Executive to
perform adjudication functions.

 Potential Conflict of interest – Executives adjudicating cases of executives. The Executive is

also the largest litigant in the country.

 Inadequate constitutional protection – The tribunals do not enjoy the same constitutional
protection as HC.

 Increasing Pendency and inordinate delays – Average pendency across tribunals is 3.8 years
with 25% increase in the size of unresolved cases.

 Undermining the Authority of Judiciary – Tribunals have largely replaced HC for disputes
under the various Acts.
  Overcrowding of tribunals leads to “Tribalization of justice” as observed by the Supreme
Court.

 Huge vacancies in dozens of tribunals have defeated the very purpose for which these
specialized quasi- judicial forums were created.

 Unequal geographical presence – Tribunals are also not as accessible as HC. This makes
justice expensive and difficult to access.

 Overlapping Jurisdiction – Various tribunals are functioning under various ministries and
departments and also there are multiple tribunals performing functions of similar nature.

Way Forward

Law Commission of India (LCI) in its report has laid out a detailed procedure for improving the
working of the tribunal system in the country-

 Qualification of judges – In case of transfer of jurisdiction of HC (or District Court) to a

Tribunal, the members of the newly constituted Tribunal should possess the qualifications
akin to the judges of the HC (or District Court).

 Common nodal agency – Under law ministry to monitor the working of tribunals as well as
ensure uniformity in the appointment, tenure and service conditions of all members
appointed in the tribunals.

 Filling Vacancy arising in the Tribunal – Preferably within six months prior to the occurrence
of vacancy.

 Selection should be impartial with minimal involvement of government agencies as the

government is a party in litigation.

 Formation of Separate Selection Committee – for both judicial and administrative members.

 Equitable regional presence – Tribunals must have benches in different parts of the country
to ensure easy access to justice, ideally where the HC are situated.