Even though tribunals were set up to reduce the burden on regular courts and fast-track justice delivery, they often take more time to dispose cases and their jurisprudence is questionable. Administrative reforms are needed
With a rise in the number of legal cases, courts have become overburdened. There is tremendous pressure on the judiciary and this raises administrative and quasi-judicial questions, relating to disputes in areas such as industry, labour, service matters, consumer welfare and taxes. In order to deliver justice expeditiously, tribunals were set up under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution. Tribunals are considered to be a potent judicial weapon for quick delivery of justice. However, the question is: Are the appointed people legally qualified to deliver justiceIJ Are these tribunals successful enough to quickly dispose casesIJ Can functioning of these bodies be improvedIJ
This writer is examining these aspects from the point of view of improving the system of natural justice in a welfare state, based on his own experience of over 37 years in administration, under both the Union Government and a State Government. The writer would like to dwell particularly upon the efficacy of the Central Administrative Tribunals, having firsthand experience as a litigant as well as an administrator.
A cursory look at the cases relating to various CATs will show that cases are disposed quicker in the High Courts than in the CATs. Take, for example, the cases of Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, an autonomous body under the Government of India. Between 2009 and 2015, the Council spent more than Rs50 lakhs in litigation in various courts of the country. Out of this amount, 95 per cent was spent in various CATs. The reason is obvious — the High Court gave quick verdicts while cases lingered in the tribunals.
In high-profile cases, there are abnormal delays as some people take advantage of their previous positions in the Government, carrying their bias and judicial incapacity to the Bench. Some tribunals delay issuing their orders for up to six months even though CAT rules say that the judgement cannot wait for more than a week after the hearing . People go to CATs after they exhaust the official channels of redressal. But some CATs compel applicants to go back to the authorities so that the tribunals may avoid deciding in favour of the applicants due to extraneous reasons and after months of hearing.
The reasons for this are many. One is the bias shown by the Administrative Members who mostly belong to the Indian Administrative Service. They tend to favour their friends in Government. The Administrative Members are used to getting away with arbitrary decisions in the Government and carry the same mindset over to the judiciary.
The second reason relates to the Judicial Members. These are often former advocates whose practice did not take off, and, hence, they became Judicial Members of Government tribunals. When such Judicial Members preside over the Bench, they generally go by the opinion of the Administrative Member(s).
Further, there is no supervisory control over the tribunals which are autonomous bodies. This results in a lack of accountability, which is reflected in many tribunals. For example, in the consumer forums, it is commonly seen that the Members do not attend office on time and the people have to suffer.
Many Government agencies take the CATs for granted and procrastinate in filing their replies. The state agencies keep seeking more time in order to tire the litigants. This beats the very purpose of the tribunals.
There should be a fair assessment of what tribunals have achieved. For now, it is clear that they have failed in the expeditious disposal of cases. Their Benches are run mostly by retired judges and retired bureaucrats. This introduces arbitrariness.
While the tribunal system may be good for regulatory functions wherein the agencies work within a set fixed framework, in other cases where jurisprudence is the primary concern, it may not be the best fit. One should reconsider if the work of the tribunals should go back to the High Courts, with more presiding judges.
Alternatively, The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, should be amended and a timeframe of three months, as the upper limit for resolving cases, should be fixed. This will help dispose cases on time. Also, there needs to be stringent monitoring for capacity assessment and annual auditing of judgements.
The Government should constitute a Recruitment Board, headed by a serving judge of the Supreme Court and comprising two to three other judges. The Board should advertise the posts and recruit candidates independently. The Government should also reduce the age of retirement to 62 years for non-Judicial Members and appoint only those who have at least five years of service left. This will foster accountability.
(The writer is the chairman of Foundation for Integrated Resources Management. He is a former Principal Secretary, Government of Tripura and Director General of Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education)