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.
It asks 3 things — 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 bring speed and expertise; the 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted Articles 323A and 323B, and early laws barred High Court jurisdiction, raising the charge that tribunals curtail ordinary courts.
Cover
- Qualified agreement: original jurisdiction over service, tax, industrial and company disputes moved to tribunals, but supervisory jurisdiction cannot be ousted.
- L. Chandra Kumar (1997): judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is basic structure; tribunal orders go to a High Court Division Bench.
- Constitutional basis: Article 323A for service disputes; Article 323B for taxation, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms and other subjects.
- Madras Bar Association (2014): the National Tax Tribunal Act fell, since a court substitute must match courts' independence.
- Competency concerns: the Finance Act, 2017 (and, since then, the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021) kept selection, tenure and service conditions close to the executive; vacancies and weak infrastructure persist.
- Way forward: a National Tribunals Commission (since then, directed by the Court in November 2025), secure tenure and judicial-majority selection.
Close with · Tribunals are valid as supplements, not substitutes, for courts; Article 50's separation of judiciary from executive is the standard their independence must meet.
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”
- Part XIVA (Articles 323A and 323B) was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, with effect from 3 January 1977.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department ↗“Ins. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 46 (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).”
- The Finance Act, 2017 merged tribunals by domain and let the Union notify by rules the selection committees, members' qualifications and service conditions.The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 - PRS Legislative Research ↗“The Finance Act, 2017 merged tribunals based on domain. It also empowered the central government to notify rules on: (i) composition of search-cum-selection committees, (ii) qualifications of tribunal members, and (iii) their terms and conditions of service (such as their removal and salaries).”
- The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021: a search-cum-selection committee chaired by the CJI (or his nominee) with two Union Secretaries, and a four-year term.The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 - PRS Legislative Research ↗“The Committee will consist of: (i) the Chief Justice of India, or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by him, as the Chairperson (with casting vote), (ii) two Secretaries nominated by the central government”
- The 2021 Bill provided a four-year term for tribunal chairpersons and members.The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 - PRS Legislative Research ↗“The Bill provides for a four-year term of office (subject to the upper age limit of 70 years for the Chairperson, and 67 years for members).”
- Article 50 directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024) - Legislative Department ↗“50. Separation of judiciary from executive.—The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 371words · Minimalist IAS
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies meant to bring speed and subject expertise to adjudication. The 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted Articles 323A and 323B, and early laws under them barred High Court jurisdiction. The charge of curtailing ordinary courts is as old as tribunals.
Do tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? Only in part
- Yes, at the first tier: service, tax, industrial and company disputes moved from civil courts and High Courts to tribunals.
- No, at the top: L. Chandra Kumar (1997) held judicial review by the High Courts and the Supreme Court to be part of the basic structure; tribunal orders lie before a High Court Division Bench.
- Verdict: tribunals redistribute original jurisdiction and relieve backlog, but cannot oust the courts' supervisory role; they supplement, not supplant.
Constitutional validity of tribunals
- Article 323A: Parliament may set up administrative tribunals for recruitment and service disputes of public servants.
- Article 323B: legislatures may create tribunals for taxation, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms and other listed subjects.
- Test of equivalence: in Madras Bar Association (2014) the Court struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act, since a body replacing courts must match their independence and judicial competence.
- 1976: 42nd Amendment
- 1997: L. Chandra Kumar
- 2014: NTT Act struck down
- 2017: Finance Act merges tribunals
- 2021: Tribunals Reforms Act
Competency of tribunals
- Executive control: the Finance Act, 2017 merged tribunals by domain and let the Union notify members' qualifications, removal and salaries by rules.
- Selection and tenure: since then, the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 set a four-year term and a selection committee chaired by the Chief Justice but including two Union Secretaries.
- Capacity gaps: vacancies, weak infrastructure and members without judicial training dent trust.
Way forward
- National Tribunals Commission: an independent body for appointments, service conditions and budgets, (since then, in November 2025, it struck down key provisions of the 2021 Act and directed the Union to constitute one).
- Secure tenure: longer terms and judicial-majority selection, with administration kept away from the ministry that litigates before the tribunal.
Tribunals are constitutionally valid as supplements, never substitutes, for the courts. Their legitimacy rests on the separation that Article 50 asks for, keeping the judiciary apart from the executive, so that speed and expertise never cost independence.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
