Unit 5

Tribunals

5.1 Meaning and Composition of Tribunal

5.1.2 Procedure, Powers, and Functions

5.1.3 Adjudication made by Tribunal and its efficacy.

5.2 Lokpal and Lokayukta

5.2.1 Functions and utility of Lokpal and Lokayukta

5.2.2 Composition, Importance and Powers 

 

Unit 5: Tribunals, Lokpal and Lokayukta

5.1 Tribunals: Meaning, Composition, and Powers

Introduction & Definition

A Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body set up to decide disputes in specific areas (like taxes, service matters, or environment) that require special expertise.

• Origin: They were not part of the original Constitution. They were added by the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) based on the Swaran Singh Committee recommendations.
• Concept: “Justice by Experts.” Unlike regular courts where judges are generalists, tribunals often have subject matter experts (e.g., environmental scientists in NGT) sitting alongside judges.

Statutory Provisions

• Article 323-A: Administrative Tribunals (for public service matters only).
• Article 323-B: Tribunals for other matters (Taxation, Foreign Exchange, Land Reforms, etc.).
• Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: The enabling law that set up the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

5.1.1 Meaning and Composition

• Meaning: A body midway between a Court and an Administrative Department. It has the power to adjudicate but is not a full-fledged court.
• Composition (Example: CAT):
  • Chairman: Usually a retired Chief Justice of a High Court or SC Judge.
  • Judicial Members: Persons with a legal/judicial background.
  • Administrative Members: Experts with experience in administration (e.g., senior IAS officers).
  • Significance: This mix ensures that the decision is legally sound and practically feasible.

5.1.2 Procedure, Powers, and Functions

• Procedure:
  • Not bound by CPC/Evidence Act: Tribunals are not bound by the strict procedures of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) or the Indian Evidence Act.
  • Natural Justice: They are guided strictly by the Principles of Natural Justice (Fair Hearing, No Bias).
• Powers:
  • To summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses.
  • To require the discovery and production of documents.
  • To receive evidence on affidavits.
  • To review their own decisions.
• Functions: To resolve disputes quickly, cheaply, and efficiently, relieving the burden on High Courts.

5.1.3 Adjudication by Tribunal and its Efficacy

• Adjudication: The decision of a tribunal is called an “Award” or “Order.” It is binding on the parties.
• Efficacy (Pros):
  • Speed: Much faster than civil courts.
  • Expertise: Administrative members bring technical knowledge.
  • Flexibility: Informal procedure makes it accessible to laymen.
• Criticism (Cons):
  • Lack of Independence: Since members often come from the Executive branch (bureaucrats), there is a fear of “Executive influence.”
  • Appeals: Decisions are often challenged in High Courts, defeating the purpose of speedy justice.

Comparison: Court vs. Tribunal

Feature	Court of Law	Tribunal
Scope	General Jurisdiction (Civil, Criminal, etc.).	Specific Jurisdiction (Service, Tax, etc.).
Procedure	Strict adherence to CPC and Evidence Act.	Flexible; guided by Natural Justice.
Presiding Officer	Trained in Law only (Judges).	Mix of Judicial and Technical/Admin experts.
Evidence	Strict proof required.	Summary inquiry; preponderance of probability.

Landmark Case Laws

1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)

• Issue: Are Tribunals a valid substitute for High Courts?
• Judgment: The SC upheld the validity of Tribunals but directed that their members must be appointed in consultation with the CJI to ensure independence. It held that Tribunals are substitutes for High Courts in their specific areas.

2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) – [Most Important]

• Issue: Can Tribunals exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts (Article 226)?
• Judgment: The SC overruled Sampath Kumar. It held that Judicial Review by High Courts is part of the Basic Structure.
• Impact: Tribunals cannot exclude the High Court’s jurisdiction. Decisions of Tribunals (like CAT) can be challenged in the Division Bench of the concerned High Court. Tribunals are supplemental, not substitutes.

Exam-Style Conclusion

Tribunals represent a modern functional approach to justice, blending legal expertise with administrative experience. While L. Chandra Kumar (1997) restored the supremacy of High Courts over them, Tribunals remain the primary forum for resolving specialized disputes like service matters and environmental issues.

5.2 Lokpal and Lokayukta

Introduction & Definition

Lokpal (at the Centre) and Lokayukta (at the States) are anti-corruption ombudsman institutions.

• Origin: The term “Lokpal” was coined by L.M. Singhvi. The concept is borrowed from the Swedish “Ombudsman” (meaning “representative of the people”).
• Purpose: To inquire into allegations of corruption against public functionaries, including the Prime Minister.

Statutory Provisions

• The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: Passed after the massive anti-corruption movement (Anna Hazare movement).
• Section 63: Establishment of Lokayukta in every State.

5.2.2 Composition, Importance, and Powers

Composition of Lokpal:

• Chairperson: Usually a former Chief Justice of India or former SC Judge, or an eminent person.
• Members: Maximum 8 members.
  • 50% must be Judicial Members.
  • 50% must be from SC/ST/OBC/Minorities/Women.
• Selection Committee: PM + Speaker of Lok Sabha + Leader of Opposition + CJI + Eminent Jurist.

Jurisdiction (Who can be investigated?):

• Prime Minister (with exceptions for international relations, security, etc.).
• Ministers of the Union.
• Members of Parliament (MPs).
• Group A, B, C, and D officers of the Central Government.

Powers:

1. Search and Seizure: Power to search and seize documents.
2. Attachment of Assets: Power to confiscate assets acquired through corrupt means, even pending the inquiry.
3. Superintendence over CBI: Can give directions to the CBI for cases referred to it.
4. Civil Court Powers: Power to summon witnesses, take evidence on oath.

5.2.1 Functions and Utility

• Inquiry Wing: Conducts preliminary inquiry into corruption complaints.
• Prosecution Wing: Files cases in Special Courts against corrupt officials.
• Utility:
  • Independence: It is independent of the Executive (Government).
  • Accountability: High-ranking officials who were previously “untouchable” are now accountable.
  • Time-Bound Justice: The Act mandates time limits for preliminary inquiry (60 days) and investigation (6 months).

Landmark Case / Context

1. Common Cause v. Union of India (2017)

• Context: The Govt delayed appointing the Lokpal for years, citing the absence of a “Leader of Opposition” (LoP) in Parliament.
• Judgment: The SC scolded the government and directed it to appoint the Lokpal immediately, stating the Act cannot be made redundant just because there is no recognized LoP. (This led to the appointment of Pinaki Chandra Ghose as the first Lokpal in 2019).

Legal Exceptions/Provisos

• Prime Minister Exception: No inquiry can be initiated against the PM if the matter relates to:
  • International relations.
  • External and internal security.
  • Public order.
  • Atomic energy and space.
• False Complaints: The Act provides for heavy penalties (imprisonment up to 1 year) for filing false or frivolous complaints, to prevent misuse.

Exam-Style Conclusion

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is a landmark in India’s fight against corruption. By bringing the highest offices, including the Prime Minister, under its scanner and ensuring an independent inquiry mechanism, it fulfills the long-standing demand for a strong, autonomous Ombudsman in India.