Sambhav-2025

Approach Briefly define tribunals and introduce Articles 323A and 323B. Differentiate the scope and structure of tribunals under Article 323A and Article 323B, providing examples. Conclude suitably.

Introduction

Tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies designed to ensure speedy, efficient, and expert adjudication in specific disputes. The 42^nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976) introduced Articles 323A and 323B, enabling the government to establish tribunals for reducing the burden on regular courts. While both articles permit the creation of tribunals, they significantly differ in their scope (subject-matter) and structure (authority, composition, and hierarchy).

Body

Difference in Scope of Tribunals under Article 323A and 323B:

• Article 323A exclusively deals with service matters related to government employees, ensuring resolution of disputes regarding recruitment, promotions, transfers, disciplinary actions, and service conditions.
• Article 323B covers a wider range of subjects beyond service matters, including taxation, industrial and labor disputes, land reforms, elections, foreign exchange, and consumer protection.
• The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under Article 323A resolves disputes concerning government employees, while tribunals like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), National Green Tribunal (NGT), and Election Tribunals function under Article 323B.

Difference in Structure of Tribunals under Article 323A and 323B:

• Authority to Establish Tribunals:
  • Article 323A tribunals can only be established by Parliament, ensuring uniformity in handling service-related disputes across the nation.
  • Article 323B tribunals can be established by both Parliament and State Legislatures, allowing flexibility based on state-specific and national needs.
• Hierarchy of Tribunals:
  • Article 323A does not allow a hierarchy, meaning only one tribunal per state or at the national level can be created.
  • Article 323B permits a hierarchy of tribunals, enabling the creation of multiple levels, including appellate tribunals, for various subject matters.
• Judicial Review and Oversight:
  • Initially, both Article 323A and 323B tribunals excluded High Court and Supreme Court jurisdiction.
  • However, the L. Chandra Kumar case (1997) reaffirmed judicial review as a part of the Basic Structure, ensuring High Courts and the Supreme Court retain oversight over tribunal decisions.
• Appointment and Composition of Members:
  • Article 323A mandates that tribunal members be qualified judicial officers or legal experts, ensuring expertise in service-related disputes.
  • Article 323B allows the inclusion of both legal and subject-matter experts, depending on the nature of the tribunal, such as environmental or taxation specialists.

Conclusion

Tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B play a crucial role in reducing judicial backlog and ensuring specialized adjudication. However, their independence, efficiency, and accessibility must be strengthened through reforms, such as better infrastructure, transparent appointments, and stricter implementation of tribunal decisions. A well-functioning tribunal system is essential for expediting justice and upholding constitutional values.