Q tribunals in india and their growth and their reasons

Ans 1. tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to resolve disputes in specialized areas of law.

2.They are distinct from ordinary courts in that they are designed to be more informal, efficient, and
specialized in handling specific types of disputes.

3. The growth of tribunals in India can be understood within the context of the increasing need for
efficiency

4. The establishment of tribunals also addresses concerns regarding the overload of traditional
courts.

Reasons for the Growth of Tribunals in India

Judicial Overload:

• The regular courts in India have faced a growing backlog of cases, leading to delays in justice
delivery. Tribunals offer a more specialized and streamlined approach to dispute resolution,
thereby reducing the burden on the courts.

• In a country as vast and populous as India, regular courts would often be overburdened with
cases that could be better handled by experts in particular fields.

Specialization and Expertise:

• Tribunals are often constituted to deal with highly specialized matters, such as taxation,
environmental law, and corporate governance. This allows for more efficient and informed
decision-making.

• For example, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or National Green Tribunal brings together
experts with specialized knowledge in these fields, enabling them to better address complex
legal and technical issues.

Access to Justice and Speed of Resolution:

• Tribunals offer quicker resolution of cases compared to regular courts. This is particularly
important in matters requiring urgent decisions, such as industrial disputes, service-related
matters, or consumer grievances.

• Tribunals are often perceived as more accessible to ordinary citizens, given their less formal
structure and faster decision-making process.

Cost-Effectiveness:

• Tribunals are typically less expensive to access than regular courts. This makes them an
attractive option for individuals and organizations seeking timely relief, particularly in
specialized areas like labor, taxation, and consumer protection.

Need for Administrative Efficiency:

• Many tribunals are set up to handle disputes that arise within the public administration and
government departments. These tribunals help in dealing with service-related matters of
government employees, disputes related to the allocation of resources (e.g., land, water,
etc.), and regulatory compliance.
• The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), established under Article 323-A of the
Constitution, addresses disputes concerning government servants and public sector
employees, reducing the administrative burden on the courts.

Judicial Review and Accountability:

• Tribunals are set up to provide an alternative forum for dispute resolution, but their
decisions remain subject to judicial review. This ensures that tribunals remain accountable
and that any arbitrariness in decision-making can be corrected by higher courts.

• In the L. Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that while tribunals can
adjudicate matters within their jurisdiction, their decisions can be reviewed by the High
Courts and the Supreme Court, ensuring constitutional safeguards.

Encouraging Alternative Dispute Resolution:

• Tribunals promote a more flexible, non-confrontational approach to dispute resolution. This

can encourage quicker settlements and greater satisfaction among parties, particularly in
complex and technical areas.

• Tribunals like the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission encourage an

amicable resolution of consumer disputes, often outside the formalities of regular courts.

Global and Regional Trends:

• The growth of tribunals in India is also part of a broader global trend where countries have
increasingly relied on specialized bodies to deal with specific legal and regulatory issues. This
international trend is reflected in India's adoption of such tribunals to deal with complex
issues like environmental protection, corporate governance, and international trade.

Challenges and Criticism

While tribunals have played a significant role in the judicial system, they are not without
their challenges:

• Lack of Uniformity: There is a lack of uniformity in the structure and functioning of tribunals,
which can lead to inefficiency and inconsistencies in decision-making.

• Inadequate Infrastructure: Many tribunals still face challenges in terms of infrastructure,

staffing, and technological support.

• Overlapping Jurisdiction: In some cases, there is overlapping jurisdiction between tribunals

and courts, leading to confusion and delays.

Q What is a Corporation?
A corporation is a legal entity created by a group of individuals who act together as a single
entity for a specific purpose, such as conducting business, providing services, or managing public
functions.

in legal terms, a corporation is separate from its owners, meaning it has its own legal personality,
rights, and obligations distinct from the individuals who own or manage it. Corporations can be
 created either under private law (for-profit entities) or public law (governmental or quasi-
governmental entities).

There are generally two types of corporations:

1. Private Corporations (For-Profit):

o These include business corporations, which are created to conduct commercial

activities with the goal of earning profits for shareholders.

2. Public Corporations (Governmental or Quasi-Governmental):

o These include entities that are created by the government for the purpose of
carrying out specific public functions (e.g., railways, electricity boards, and public
service commissions). Public corporations often operate with public funding and are
subject to specific regulations governing their operations.

In administrative law, the term "corporation" often refers to public corporations or government-
owned corporations that exercise public functions and are controlled or owned by the
government

Importance of Corporations in Administrative Law

Corporations, especially public corporations, play a significant role in administrative law.
Administrative law governs the actions of government agencies, and corporations that perform
public functions are often subject to this body of law. The importance of corporations in
administrative law can be understood in several key areas:

1. Role in Public Administration and Governance

• Public Corporations are often created by the government to deliver essential public services
or carry out important functions on behalf of the state. These can include sectors like
transportation (e.g., Indian Railways), energy (e.g., state electricity boards), water supply,
and other utilities.

• They perform administrative functions that directly affect the public,

Examples: National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC),
etc.

2. Power to Make Rules and Regulations

• Many public corporations, by virtue of their enabling statutes, have the power to make rules
and regulations within their areas of operation.

4. Autonomy and Accountability

• While corporations, especially public corporations, are created by the government, they are
often given a certain degree of autonomy to carry out their functions without political
interference. However, this autonomy is not absolute.

5. Judicial Review of Actions of Public Corporations

 Even though public corporations often have administrative autonomy, their actions are still
subject to judicial review courts can intervene when a public corporation’s actions

Examples of Corporations and Their Role in Administrative Law

, Indian railways,ongc ntpc

Q difference between courts and tribunals

courts and tribunals are both judicial bodies that resolve disputes and administer justice, but
they differ in their structure, function, and scope. In India, tribunals have become an increasingly
important part of the legal system, especially with the growth of specialized areas of law. Below is a
detailed comparison between courts and tribunals in India:

Nature Courts are formal judicial bodies established under tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies
the Constitution of India (or specific statutes) to established by the government for the
adjudicate disputes purpose of adjudicating specific types of
disputes
2. Jurisdiction Courts generally have unlimited jurisdiction tribunals have specialized jurisdiction
defined by the statute under which they are
created.
Structure and Courts are generally presided over by judges tribunals are typically headed by a
Composition chairperson who may or may not be a
retired judge, and their members may
include experts in the relevant field
. Procedure and Courts follow a formal procedure set out in the Tribunals are often designed to be more
Formality Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Criminal Procedure informal and flexible than courts. They may
Code (CrPC), and other procedural laws. not be bound by the strict rules of procedure
or evidence that apply in courts.
Appeals and Judicial Appeals from decisions of subordinate courts are Appeals from tribunal decisions are typically
Review made to higher court to higher tribunals or courts, depending on
the specific law governing the tribunal.
Purpose and Role in the Courts are designed to resolve all types of dispute Tribunals serve to provide specialized
Legal System adjudication for specific issues, reducing the
burden on the judiciary and providing expert
knowledge in technical areas
. Accountability and Courts are directly accountable to the tribunals, though quasi-judicial, are not as
Oversight Constitution and are subject to judicial review and independent as courts. While they are
public scrutiny. accountable to the legislature and
executive,
Example of Courts and Supreme Court of India: High Courts: Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
Tribunals income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT
nclt, ngtetc
Q Advantages and Disadvantages of Tribunals in India
Advantages Disadvantages

Specialization: Tribunals are specialized bodies Limited Jurisdiction: Tribunals have restricted
that deal with specific types of cases (e.g., tax, jurisdiction and can only hear cases related to
labor, environmental, corporate), allowing for their specialized area, unlike courts that have
expert knowledge in those areas. broader jurisdiction.

Limited Judicial Independence: Members of

Efficiency and Speed: Tribunals are designed to tribunals may not have the same level of judicial
provide faster resolution of disputes compared to independence as judges in regular courts, and
traditional courts, helping reduce case backlog. their appointments can be influenced by the
executive.

Cost-Effectiveness: Tribunals often have lower Inconsistent Procedures: The procedures followed
fees and simpler procedures, making them more by tribunals can vary significantly between
affordable and accessible to the general public, different tribunals, leading to a lack of uniformity
especially in technical or administrative matters. and predictability in decisions.

Limited Appeal Mechanism: While some tribunal

Flexibility: Tribunals often have more flexible
decisions can be appealed to higher courts, the
procedures compared to courts, making the
appeal process can be more restrictive or less
process less formal and easier for non-legal
transparent compared to appeals from regular
professionals to navigate.
courts.

Expertise: Tribunal members often include Potential for Bias: The presence of government-
subject matter experts (e.g., accountants, appointed members may lead to concerns about
engineers, specialists), ensuring that decisions impartiality, especially in tribunals where the
are made based on specialized knowledge. government is a party to the dispute.

Risk of Fragmentation: The increasing number of

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Tribunals offer a
tribunals in different sectors may lead to
less formal, less adversarial environment, which
fragmentation in the legal system, creating
can encourage settlement and quicker resolution
inconsistencies between tribunals and regular
of disputes.
courts.

Access to Justice: Tribunals are more accessible Potential Overlap with Courts: Some tribunals
for the public, particularly in specialized areas, as have overlapping jurisdictions with courts, leading
they offer a quicker, more accessible alternative to confusion about which forum should hear
to the courts. certain types of cases.

Focus on Administrative Matters: Tribunals are

Lack of Resources: Many tribunals face challenges
often established to deal with matters
such as inadequate staffing, infrastructure, and
concerning the government or public
technological support, which can delay decision-
administration (e.g., administrative services,
making and affect efficiency.
regulatory matters).
Q.Salient features of tribunals
tribunals are specialized judicial bodies or quasi-judicial institutions created to handle specific types of
disputes or cases, often as an alternative to traditional court systems. They are designed to provide a more
efficient, accessible, and specialized form of justice. Here are some salient features of tribunals:

1. Specialized Jurisdiction

• Tribunals are established to handle specific types of cases, such as labor disputes, tax issues,
administrative matters, or human rights complaints. This specialization allows for greater expertise
in the subject matter compared to general courts.

2. Quasi-Judicial Nature

• While tribunals operate similarly to courts, they are often classified as quasi-judicial bodies. They
can adjudicate disputes and make binding decisions but typically do not have all the powers of a full
judicial court. They often follow more flexible rules of procedure and evidence.

3. Efficiency and Accessibility

• Tribunals aim to offer a faster and less formal dispute resolution process compared to traditional
courts. Their procedures are usually simpler, more flexible, and less costly, making them more
accessible to the public.

4. Expertise in Composition

• Tribunals are often composed of experts in relevant fields, including both legally qualified members
and specialists in the area of jurisdiction (e.g., tax experts, labor relations professionals). This
ensures that cases are handled by individuals with the necessary knowledge and expertise.

5. Limited Jurisdiction and Powers

• A tribunal’s powers are usually limited to the specific area of law for which it was created, and its
decisions are often subject to review by higher courts. In many cases, tribunals cannot grant
punitive damages or exercise powers beyond their mandate.

6. Flexible Procedures

• Tribunals tend to adopt more relaxed procedural rules than those of traditional courts, often
allowing for simplified evidence rules and informal hearings. This flexibility aims to make the
tribunal process more user-friendly, especially for those representing themselves.

7. Appeals and Judicial Review

• Many tribunal decisions are subject to appeals, either internally or in a court of law. Higher courts
may also review tribunal decisions on certain grounds, such as an error in law or a breach of natural
justice principles.

8. Less Adversarial Process

• The tribunal process is often less adversarial than traditional court proceedings, focusing on
resolving disputes in a fair and just manner rather than on legal technicalities. This approach is
intended to make the process less intimidating and more accessible.

9. Statutory Basis

• Tribunals are typically created by specific legislation or statutes, which define their jurisdiction,
powers, and procedures. Their existence and authority depend on the legal framework provided by
these statutes.
10. Encouragement of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

• Many tribunals encourage the use of ADR methods, such as mediation or negotiation, before
proceeding with formal hearings. This can help reduce caseloads and resolve disputes in a more
amicable and efficient manner.

These features make tribunals an attractive alternative for resolving disputes in certain fields, allowing for
quicker, more specialized, and often more affordable resolutions than traditional courts.