Tribunalisation of courts in India

Tribunalisation of courts in India

Question: The struggle between the judiciary and the legislature is ongoing. Discuss the tussle pertaining to tribunalisation of courts.

• Division Bench of the Madras HC has recently turned down key provisions pertaining to the IPAB/Intellectual Property Appellate Board under the Trade Marks Act as not abiding with the constitution. The confrontation between the judiciary and the legislature on the tribunalisation of the courts.

• Concern has been expressed regarding the competence, validity and character of many tribunals in India

• SC in numerous decisions has expressed the principles that a tribunal has to abide by for ensuring constitutional validity

• The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy report (2014) has reported there are 29 different tribunals established under numerous Central legislations and indicated their inconsistency with SC parameters

• In Chandra Kumar (97) and NCLT(2010), the court has indicated that tribunals should have the same constitutional protections while replacing the jurisdiction of courts

• The rank and capacity of a tribunal judge therefore equals a court judge

• The recent apex court judgement has struck down the NTT/National Tax Tribunals signalling many implications for the constitutionality of tribunals

• Legislature also needs to make laws stand in consonance with constitutional principles

• Tribunals must not be permitted to usurp the powers of the judiciary

• Independence of judiciary and separation of powers between it and the legislature are the basic structure of the Constitution

• For instance, the qualification and selection of Technical Member, Judicial Member and Chairman of the IPAB is a crucial issue

• HC judgement has indicated that this is not in keeping with the constitution and an officer working with the Executive cannot operate in judicial capacity

• Section 85(3)(a) of the Trade Marks Act has also permitted the Indian Legal Services members to hold office for Grade 1 for a duration of at least 3 years for appointment as a IPAB Judicial Member

• HC has declared this to be unconstitutional indicating an officer working with the Executive will not be able to act in a judicial capacity

• Recommendations of the Chief Justice of India for the post of Chairman must also be considered by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, as per the court

Facts and Stats

• Tribunals have been created for speedy disposal of disputes which are specialised

• Rules of evidence are central to courts but not tribunals

• Tribunals allow plaintiffs to argue their case unlike courts

• Courts adjudicate in numerous cases while tribunals specialise in key areas for example administrative tribunals

• Litigation in courts is more expensive than tribunals; proceedings of the court are carried out by judge/magistrate while tribunals have chairmans and other members

• Tribunals have fewer powers than courts and they are informal in a sense

• The different types of tribunals in India include

- Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
- Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
- Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai
- Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai
- Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore
- Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
- Railway Claims Tribunals