Statutory, Regulatory and Quasi-judicial Bodies

In November 2025 the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 that revived clauses it had already invalidated. The relation between tribunals and courts remains unsettled.

Where tribunals do curtail courts

Ouster of jurisdiction: The 42nd Amendment of 1976 added Articles 323A and 323B, which let Parliament exclude every court except the Supreme Court from tribunal matters.

Executive control: Ministries that litigate before a tribunal often appoint and fund its members, which weakens its independence.

Non judicial members: Technical and administrative members decide questions of law, sometimes without a judicial member on the bench.

Where the view overstates the case

Judicial review restored: In L. Chandra Kumar (1997), the court held judicial review part of the basic structure. Tribunal orders now go before a High Court division bench, so tribunals work as courts of first instance rather than substitutes.

Specialisation and speed: Bodies such as the National Green Tribunal and the National Company Law Tribunal bring expertise to technical disputes and relieve overloaded courts.

Constitutional validity and competency

Validity: Tribunals are valid under Articles 323A and 323B, but only while they remain as independent as the courts they replace.

Competency: In Madras Bar Association (2025), the court struck down a four year tenure, a minimum age of fifty and government choice between two nominees. It directed a National Tribunals Commission within four months.

Persistent gaps: Vacancies and short tenures still slow many tribunals, which defeats their purpose.

Tribunals curtail ordinary courts only when the executive controls them. Their validity rests on independence, so an autonomous National Tribunals Commission is the remedy the Constitution already demands.

Decode

How far do you agree asks for a qualified position. The second part asks for validity and competency, which are distinct: one is legal, the other is about capacity.

Implicit demand

The examiner wants the student to show that the curtailment argument was strong before 1997 and weaker after, and that the live problem is independence rather than jurisdiction.

Architecture

A current hook from the 2025 judgment → where tribunals curtail courts → where the view overstates the case → validity and competency → verdict.

Articulation

Anchor: the 42nd Amendment, Articles 323A and 323B, L. Chandra Kumar, Madras Bar Association 2025, the National Green Tribunal. Money line: tribunals curtail ordinary courts only when the executive controls them.

The constitutional scheme

Article 323A covers administrative tribunals for public service matters, and only Parliament can create them.

Article 323B covers taxation, land reform, industrial disputes, elections and other matters, and both Parliament and state legislatures can create these tribunals.

The Swaran Singh Committee recommended tribunals in 1976 to reduce the burden on High Courts.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 created the Central Administrative Tribunal and allowed states to create their own.

Tribunals also exist under ordinary statutes, such as the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Securities Appellate Tribunal and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The judicial line on tribunals

S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987) upheld tribunals as effective substitutes for High Courts, provided they were equally independent.

L. Chandra Kumar (1997) struck down the clauses excluding High Courts and Supreme Court review under Articles 226, 227 and 32.

R. Gandhi (2010) held that tribunals exercising judicial functions must have judicial members and independence comparable to courts.

Rojer Mathew (2019) struck down rules framed under the Finance Act, 2017 for weakening independence.

Madras Bar Association (2020 and 2021) set a five year tenure and made advocates with ten years of practice eligible, which Parliament then tried to override.

The judgment of 19 November 2025 said Parliament cannot enact struck down provisions again without curing the defect, and noted that the Union is the largest litigant before tribunals.

Competency and reform

The Law Commission in its 272nd report (2017) recommended uniform service conditions and a common selection method.

Several tribunals were abolished by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, and their work shifted to High Courts, which added to court pendency.

Tribunals often sit only in Delhi or a few cities, which raises the cost of access for litigants from distant states.

Appeals from many tribunals go straight to the Supreme Court, which burdens it with routine matters.

A National Tribunals Commission would handle appointments, budgets and infrastructure independently of parent ministries.

Nodal control of all tribunals by the Ministry of Law, rather than by the ministry being litigated against, would reduce conflicts of interest.