• Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies created to deliver specialised, speedy, and low-cost dispute resolution outside regular courts.
• Handle areas like service matters, taxation, environment, company law, telecom, foreigner determination, etc.
• Aim to reduce burden on courts, provide expert adjudication, and ensure decentralised access to justice.
  

Key Features

• Natural justice: Fair hearing; no one judges their own case.
• Flexible procedure: Not bound by Civil Procedure Code; allows simplified evidence rules.
• Subject expertise: Judicial + technical members with domain specialisation.
• Quasi-judicial powers: Record evidence, examine witnesses, decide facts and law, issue binding orders.
• Appellate pathways: Appeals generally lie to High Courts/Supreme Court (post Chandra Kumar, 1997).
• Time-efficient: Designed to provide faster disposal than conventional courts.

Constitutional & Legal Framework

• Part XIV-A (42nd Amendment, 1976) introduced tribunals.
• Article 323A: Parliament may create Administrative Tribunals for service matters.
• Article 323B: Parliament and State Legislatures may create tribunals on subjects like labour, land reforms, taxation, elections, etc.
• Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Establishes CAT, SATs, JATs; provides original jurisdiction for service disputes of central/state employees.

Major Types of Tribunals

• Administrative Tribunals:
  
  • Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – service matters of central employees.
  • State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) – service matters of state employees.
  • Joint Administrative Tribunal (JAT) – for two or more states.
    
• Sectoral Tribunals (Examples):
  
  • National Green Tribunal (NGT) – environmental disputes.
  • National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – company law, insolvency matters.
  • Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) – telecom sector.
  • Foreigners Tribunals (Assam-specific) – citizenship/foreigner determination.

Issues and Challenges

• Executive dominance: Government is the largest litigant yet controls appointments, service conditions, and removal of members.
• Independence concerns: Short tenures, lack of security, and ministry control weaken autonomy
• Vacancies and pendency: Large delays due to unfilled posts (SC flagged major vacancies).
• Overlapping jurisdictions: Multiple tribunals in similar domains (e.g., NCLT vs COMPAT earlier)
• Bypassing High Courts: Attempts to oust HC jurisdiction raised constitutional tensions (addressed in Chandra Kumar).
• Administrative inconsistency: Different ministries run tribunals with varied qualifications, infrastructure, and procedures.

Reforms Needed

• National Tribunal Commission (NTC): Independent body to oversee appointments, tenure, service conditions, and evaluation.
• Uniform standards: Harmonise qualifications, tenure, salaries, and removal processes across tribunals.
• Timely appointments: Automatic, time-bound filling of vacancies.
• Strengthen independence: Secure tenure, financial autonomy, and protection from executive interference.
• Streamlining: Merge or rationalise tribunals to avoid duplication and confusion.
• Digital upgrades: e-filing, virtual hearings, and integrated case-tracking to reduce delays.