How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India.
Approach · directive: “how far do you agree / discuss”
What it asks · Judge whether tribunals take over the work of ordinary courts, and discuss their constitutional basis, the limits set by the Supreme Court, and their competence and independence.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- How far do you agree: do tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? Take a qualified position
- Discuss the constitutional validity of tribunals: Articles 323A and 323B and the judicial tests
- Discuss their competency: independence, appointments, expertise and the reforms sought
Open with · Tribunals were created for speed and expertise; the 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted Articles 323A and 323B, which raised fears that they displace ordinary courts.
Cover
- The view: tribunals take service, tax, industrial and other disputes away from civil courts and High Courts, and early laws even barred High Court jurisdiction, weakening ordinary courts' role.
- The counter-view: they reduce backlog and bring subject expertise, flexible procedure and speed, while ordinary courts remain the final check through judicial review.
- Constitutional basis: Article 323A provides for administrative tribunals for service matters, and Article 323B for tribunals on subjects such as taxation, industrial and labour disputes and land reforms.
- L. Chandra Kumar (1997): judicial review by the High Courts and Supreme Court is part of the basic structure; clauses excluding their jurisdiction fell, and tribunal decisions go to a High Court Division Bench.
- Competence and independence: executive control over appointments and tenure, vacancies, poor infrastructure and non-judicial members raise doubts; in Madras Bar Association (2014) the Supreme Court struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act.
- Later concern: the Court has repeatedly asked for independent appointments, secure terms and an independent body such as a National Tribunals Commission to oversee tribunals; in November 2025 it struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and directed the Union to constitute one.
- Assessment: tribunals do not abolish ordinary courts' jurisdiction because judicial review survives, but they are valid only if independent, qualified and open to High Court review.
Close with · Tribunals are constitutionally valid alternatives to courts provided judicial review stays intact and their independence and competence are secured through fair appointments, secure tenure and proper resources.
Add value (verified)
- Article 323A(1) is the constitutional basis for administrative tribunals for recruitment and service disputes of public employees. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 323A(1) — Legislative Department ↗“Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 311 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Tribunals were created for speed and expertise; the 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted Articles 323A and 323B, and the power to exclude court jurisdiction that came with them raised the fear that tribunals displace the ordinary courts.
Do tribunals curtail ordinary courts? A qualified yes
- The concern: service, tax, industrial, company and other disputes moved from civil courts and High Courts to tribunals, and early statutes barred High Court jurisdiction altogether, thinning the courts' role.
- The counter: tribunals relieve backlog, bring domain expertise, flexible procedure and speed, and the courts remain the final check through judicial review.
- Position: tribunals redistribute original jurisdiction but cannot oust supervisory jurisdiction; the curtailment is real at the first tier and unconstitutional beyond it.
Constitutional validity
- Basis: Article 323A permits administrative tribunals for recruitment and service matters of public servants; Article 323B lets legislatures create tribunals for taxation, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms and other listed subjects.
- Limit: in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) the Supreme Court held judicial review by the High Courts and Supreme Court to be part of the basic structure, struck down clauses excluding it, and made tribunal decisions appealable to a High Court Division Bench.
- Substitutes must match: in Madras Bar Association (2014) the Court struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act, because a body replacing courts must have comparable independence and judicial competence.
Competency and independence
- Weaknesses: executive control over appointments and tenure, prolonged vacancies, poor infrastructure and members without judicial training undermine confidence.
- Reforms sought: independent selection, secure terms and an independent body such as a National Tribunals Commission (since then, in November 2025, the Court struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and directed the Union to constitute one).
Tribunals are constitutionally valid alternatives to courts provided judicial review stays intact and their independence and competence are secured through fair appointments, secure tenure and adequate resources.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.