Tribunals and alternative dispute redressal

The first principle

Courts are designed to be careful rather than quick, and when every dispute goes to them, care turns into delay. A state can respond in two ways: it can create specialised bodies that decide particular kinds of disputes with expert help, which are tribunals, or it can help parties settle disputes themselves through negotiation, conciliation, mediation or arbitration, which is alternative dispute redressal. Both make justice faster and cheaper, but tribunals raise a constitutional question that the second route does not: a body that decides cases in place of a court must be as independent as a court.

The core

The constitutional basis of tribunals

• The Forty second Amendment (1976). It added Part XIV A to the Constitution, following the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee. Article 323A lets Parliament set up administrative tribunals for disputes on recruitment and conditions of service of public servants, and Article 323B lets Parliament and state legislatures set up tribunals for listed matters such as taxation, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms, rent and tenancy, and elections.
• The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Made under Article 323A, it created the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 1985 for central government employees, and allowed State Administrative Tribunals at the request of states. A CAT bench has a judicial member and an administrative member, and it follows the principles of natural justice rather than the full Code of Civil Procedure.
• The original exclusion. Both Articles allowed the law to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136, so a government servant could not go to the High Court at all. This exclusion is where the constitutional dispute began.

From substitute to first instance

• S. P. Sampath Kumar v Union of India (1987). The Court upheld the 1985 Act on the ground that the CAT was an effective substitute for the High Court, provided it was made as independent and competent as a High Court; it suggested changes in how members were chosen.
• L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997). A seven judge bench struck down the clauses excluding the High Courts and held that judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 is part of the basic structure. Tribunals are courts of first instance that supplement the High Courts, they may test the validity of laws except their own parent law, and their decisions can be challenged before a division bench of the High Court in whose territory they sit.
• What the CAT has become. Over time the CAT has moved from a grievance forum run alongside the government towards an independent judicial body: it is headed by a former High Court Chief Justice or judge, it decides questions of constitutional validity of service rules, and its orders bind the government, while the High Court above it secures independence through review.

Dimensions

Why tribunals, and at what cost to courts

• Expertise. Disputes on tax, telecom, electricity or service rules need technical knowledge, which technical members bring.
• Speed and cost. Simpler procedure and a narrow jurisdiction let tribunals decide faster and more cheaply, and move cases away from High Courts burdened by pendency.
• Flexibility. Tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of evidence and procedure, which suits litigants who appear without lawyers.
• Do they curtail courts? In their original design they did, by excluding the High Courts. After L. Chandra Kumar they no longer take away jurisdiction; they add a specialised first tier below it. The real concern today is not exclusion but independence, because the ministry that is a party to the dispute often controls the tribunal's appointments, funds and infrastructure.

Validity and competence: the Madras Bar Association line

• Union of India v R. Gandhi (2010). On the company law tribunals, the Court held that Parliament can create tribunals in place of courts, but they must have the same independence: judicial members with judicial experience, selection committees dominated by judges, and reasonable tenure.
• Madras Bar Association (2014). The Court struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, because it moved questions of law from the High Courts to a body that did not meet these standards.
• Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank (2019). A Constitution Bench struck down rules under the Finance Act, 2017 that gave the executive control over selection and service conditions, and called for a single nodal agency and a judicial impact assessment for tribunals.
• Madras Bar Association (2020 and 2021). The Court fixed a five year term, let advocates with ten years' practice be appointed, and directed the creation of a National Tribunals Commission. In 2021 it struck down an ordinance that reimposed a four year term and a minimum age of 50.
• Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. Parliament abolished nine appellate bodies, including the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal and the Airport Appellate Tribunal, and moved their work to High Courts and commercial courts. It also fixed uniform terms for the remaining tribunals, again with a four year term and a minimum age of 50.
• Madras Bar Association (November 2025). The Supreme Court struck down the provisions of the 2021 Act on tenure and qualifications, holding that Parliament had re enacted what the Court had already invalidated without curing the defect.

Assessing the 2021 rationalisation

Removing tribunals that heard few cases saved costs, and High Courts with dedicated benches, such as the Intellectual Property Division set up by the Delhi High Court in 2021, have handled the transferred work. But the same courts the tribunals were meant to relieve now carry their load, and the conflict over tenure and qualifications kept many posts vacant for years. The lasting answer, recommended by the Court since 2019, is a National Tribunals Commission that would select members and run tribunals independently of the ministries whose decisions they review.

In practice

Alternative dispute redressal

• Lok Adalats. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Lok Adalats settle pending or pre litigation disputes by compromise, presided over by a judicial officer with a lawyer or social worker. An award is deemed a decree of a civil court, it is final and no appeal lies against it, and the court fee already paid is refunded. They deal with civil cases and with criminal offences that are compoundable, that is, which the law allows the parties to settle, and National Lok Adalats held on a single day across the country settle large numbers of cases at once.
• Permanent Lok Adalats. Under Section 22B, added in 2002, these deal with disputes on public utility services such as transport, post, telephone, power, water and hospitals. Unlike an ordinary Lok Adalat, if conciliation fails a Permanent Lok Adalat can decide the dispute on merits, and its award is binding.
• Arbitration. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on the model law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, parties to an agreement appoint an arbitral tribunal whose award binds them and is enforced as a decree. Courts can set an award aside only on narrow grounds under Section 34, such as incapacity, invalid agreement, lack of notice or conflict with public policy. Amendments in 2015 set time limits for awards, in 2019 provided for an Arbitration Council of India to promote institutional arbitration, and in 2021 allowed a stay of awards tainted by fraud or corruption. Only civil and commercial disputes are arbitrable; criminal offences, and matters such as divorce or insolvency that affect rights against the world, are not, as the Court held in Booz Allen and Hamilton (2011).
• Mediation Act, 2023. It gives India a general mediation law: voluntary pre litigation mediation, a time limit of 120 days extendable by 60, a Mediation Council of India, online and community mediation, and settlement agreements enforceable like a court judgement.
• Other routes. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure lets a court refer a suit to arbitration, conciliation, mediation or a Lok Adalat. The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 provides mobile village courts at the intermediate panchayat level for minor civil and criminal cases, though few states have set them up.

Issues and way forward

• Executive control of tribunals. Appointments, budgets and staff often come from the ministry that is a litigant. A National Tribunals Commission, or at least a single nodal ministry such as Law and Justice, would remove the conflict of interest.
• Vacancies and tenure. Short terms and repeated litigation over service conditions keep benches empty. Terms that follow the Court's standards would end the cycle of laws and judgements.
• Appeals that defeat the purpose. When most tribunal orders are challenged in High Courts and then the Supreme Court, the speed of the first tier is lost. Better quality first decisions and limits on routine appeals would help.
• Weak alternative forums. Lok Adalat settlements are sometimes pressed on poor litigants, arbitration remains expensive and slow, and mediation is new. Training mediators, building arbitral institutions and keeping Lok Adalats strictly voluntary would build trust.

Common confusions

• Article 323A and Article 323B. 323A covers only service matters and only Parliament can act under it; 323B covers listed subjects and both Parliament and states can act.
• Lok Adalat award and arbitral award. A Lok Adalat award records a compromise and cannot be appealed; an arbitral award decides the dispute and can be challenged on limited grounds under Section 34.
• Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat. An ordinary Lok Adalat only records a settlement; a Permanent Lok Adalat can decide a public utility dispute on merits.
• Tribunal and court. A tribunal is a court of first instance for its subject; it is not equal to a High Court and is subject to its review.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: Article 323A, Article 323B, Central Administrative Tribunal, court of first instance, L. Chandra Kumar, judicial review, Madras Bar Association, Tribunals Reforms Act 2021, National Tribunals Commission, Lok Adalat, compoundable offence, arbitral award, Section 34, Mediation Act 2023, Gram Nyayalaya.
• Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Use in an answer:
  • Introduction with data: "The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished nine appellate tribunals in one stroke, transferring their work to High Courts and commercial courts."
  • Introduction with a judgement: "In L. Chandra Kumar (1997) the Supreme Court held that tribunals can supplement but never supplant the High Courts, because judicial review is part of the basic structure."
  • Conclusion: "Tribunals will deliver the speed and expertise they promise only when an independent National Tribunals Commission, not the litigating ministry, selects and supports their members."
  • Conclusion: "A justice system with over five crore pending cases cannot rely on courts alone; Lok Adalats, arbitration and mediation must become first choices for disputes that parties can settle themselves."