1. 38 OCTOBER 16-31, 2015 p BUREAUCRACY TODAY 39OCTOBER 16-31, 2015 p BUREAUCRACY TODAY
TRIBUNALS READ BT ONLINE @www.bureaucracytoday.comJUDICIARY WATCHBTBT
These days the number of cases in
Tribunals in India is increasing very
fast. But a question arises whether those
appointed to these bodies are legally
qualified enough to deliver justice. And
secondly, whether these Tribunals have
succeeded in quick disposal of cases. Is
there an alternative way of improving
their functioning? Bureaucracy Today
attempts to find out answers.
u By Dr VK Bahuguna
under the Government of India.
During the 2009- 2014-15 period, the
Council spent more than Rs 50 lakhs
in litigation with its employees in
the various courts of the country.
Out of this amount 95% was spent in
various CATs. The reason is obvious.
The High Courts gave their verdicts
fast and the cases in the CATs have
been lingering for long.
ABNORMAL DELAYS
In high-profile cases there are
abnormal delays as some people
take advantage of their previous
avatars in the Government and
allegedly carry their bias to the
Bench. It is common knowledge that
Government employees go to the
CATs after they exhaust the official
channels available but some CATs, it
is learnt, again force the applicants
to go to the authorities once again
to avoid deciding their cases in their
favour due to extraneous reasons.
In another high-profile case a
Bench recently made a mockery of
the judicial system by refusing to
understand the meaning of an office
memorandum of the Government
but at the same time kept the matter
D
emocracy brought the
concept of “welfare State” in
governance aimed at social
security, the rule of law and justice
for its citizens. This put tremendous
pressure on the Indian judiciary
as the volume of cases increased
in a geometric proportion making
the courts overburdened. This
raised many administrative and
quasi-judicial questions relating to
industrial, labour, service, consumer
welfare and tax disputes. This led to
the setting up of Tribunals in order
to ensure expeditious justice delivery.
TheSupremeCourthadclarifiedthe
status of Tribunals. The apex court
in Bharat Bank Ltd Vs Employees
of Bharat Bank Ltd observed that
“tribunals are adjudicating bodies,
which decide controversies between
the parties and exercise judicial
powers as distinguished from purely
administrative functions and thus
possess some of the trappings of a
court, but not all”.
This means that those who occupy
important positions in Tribunals
must be qualified and have a sharp
judicious mind. But the question is
whether persons who are appointed
to these bodies are legally qualified
enough to deliver justice and whether
these Tribunals have succeeded in
quick disposal of cases.
A cursory look at cases relating
to various Central Administrative
Tribunals shows that except in a few
complex cases, the disposal is quicker
in High Courts than in the CATs.
Take, for example, the cases of the
Indian Council of Forestry Research
and Education, an autonomous body
Those who occupy important positions in Tribunals
must be qualified and have a sharp judicious
mind. But the question is whether persons who
are appointed to these bodies are legally qualified
enough to deliver justice and whether these
Tribunals have succeeded in quick disposal of cases.
Delivering or
denying justice?
open for discussion so that neither
justice could be done nor did the
applicant move to another court.
Without prejudice to some of the
best civil servants who excelled as
Members of these administrative
tribunals when these instruments
were created, many of them, it is
said, are now faltering in their duties
to deliver justice. One of the reasons
for this is the alleged bias shown
by some of the Administrative
Members who belong mostly to a
single Government service, i.e, IAS,
and tend to favour their friends in
the Government with whom some
of them sit and dine. The primary
reason for this is the fact that many
Members are used to getting away
with arbitrary decisions in the
Government and they carry the
same mindset to the sphere of the
judiciary.
It is a fact that since appointments
to the CATs are made by the Gov-
ernment Department of Personnel
which is the cadre controlling au-
thority of the IAS there, it is learnt,
is always a queue seeking these post-
retirement benefits. Politicians are
easily swayed by them or lobbied as
officers make a ring around them.
Informed sources say the second
reason is the fact that many Ad-
vocates whose practice is not very
good are made Judicial Members of
Tribunals. When any of them pre-
sides over the Bench of a Tribunal,
he or she, according to the sources,
generally goes by the opinion of the
Administrative Member. Further,
there is no supervisory control over
the Tribunals and they are totally au-
tonomous resulting in non-account-
ability which is reflected in many
Tribunals like Consumer Forums.
Their Members do not attend office
in time and litigants have to suffer.
The sources further say that many
Government agencies take the CATs
for granted. They prevaricate and
procrastinate in filing their replies
by seeking repeated dates in order to
tire the litigants. Thus cases linger
on for months and years together.
This beats the very purpose of creat-
ing these Tribunals.
NEED FOR FAIR ASSESSMENT
There should be a fair assessment of
what the Tribunals have achieved.
They have failed in expeditious
disposal of cases, the basic reason for
which they were created. The worst
thing is that their Benches are run
mostly by retired Judges and retired
bureaucrats and this, according to
observers, introduces arbitrariness
in the concept itself.
While the Tribunal system may
be good for regulatory functions
as they have to work within a set
formatted framework, in other cases
where adherence to the principles
of jurisprudence is the primary
concern of society, the matter should
again be considered if this function
could be transferred to the High
Courts with the creation of more
posts of Judges. Alternatively the
Act should be amended and a time-
frame of three months as the upper
limit should be fixed to dispose of a
case along with stringent monitoring
of capacity assessment and annually
auditing the way Tribunal judgments
are made with the administrative
control of the High Courts.
The Indian Government should
at least constitute a Recruitment
Board headed by a serving Judge
of the Supreme Court and having
two or three other Judges as its
members to decide all postings in
all the Tribunals. The Board should
advertise the posts and recruit
candidates independent of the
Government’s interference. The
Government should also reduce the
age of retirement in the Tribunals
to 62 years for their non-Judicial
Members. All those who are selected
should have five years’ service left
before they apply for the post and
in the event of their selection their
services should be transferred to
such Tribunals and they should
retire from there. This will foster
accountability and commitment as
only interested persons will apply.
Will the Modi Government take a
call on this issue and combine this
reform with the overall judicial
reform process in India?. 
send your feedback to:
info@bureaucracytoday.com
(The writer is the Chairman of a trust,
Foundation of Integrated Resources
Management. He is the former Principal
Secretary of the Government of Tripura
and Director General of the Indian Council
of Forestry Research and Education. He
now writes on governance issues.)
Dr VK BAHUGUNA