Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.
Approach · directive: “comment / assess”
What it asks · Explain why specialised tribunals exist alongside courts, then assess how the 2021 rationalisation (abolition and merger of tribunals, uniform service conditions) has worked.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Comment: why administrative tribunals are needed alongside the regular court system
- Assess: the impact of the 2021 rationalisation of tribunals (Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021)
Open with · Articles 323A and 323B, inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976), enabled tribunals to lighten the load of courts and bring subject expertise to adjudication.
Cover
- Need: speed, lower cost and less formality than regular courts; relief for High Courts burdened with service and regulatory cases.
- Need: domain expertise through technical members — environment (NGT), company law (NCLT), securities (SAT), service matters (CAT).
- Concerns: executive control over appointments, short tenures, vacancies; L. Chandra Kumar (1997) kept tribunals subject to High Court review.
- 2021 reform: the Tribunals Reforms Act abolished several appellate bodies (e.g., Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal, IPAB), shifting their work to High Courts and commercial courts.
- It also set uniform search-cum-selection committees, tenure and service conditions for remaining tribunals.
- Positive impact: fewer overlapping forums, uniform rules, some cost saving and a cleaner structure.
- Negative impact: added load on High Courts, loss of specialist benches, continuing vacancies; the Supreme Court has struck down tenure and age rules and urged a National Tribunals Commission.
Close with · Tribunals remain necessary, but their credibility rests on independence — an autonomous National Tribunals Commission and judicial primacy in selection would complete the reform.
Add value (verified)
- The NGT shows the case for expert tribunals: it was set up in 2010 for speedy disposal of environmental cases. About Us — National Green Tribunal ↗“The National Green Tribunal has been established on 18.10.2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection”
- Article 323A lets Parliament create administrative tribunals for disputes over recruitment and service conditions in public services. The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, as on 1 May 2024) — Article 323A ↗“Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 234 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
Articles 323A and 323B, added by the 42nd Amendment (1976), let legislatures create tribunals so that specialised disputes need not queue before overburdened courts.
Why tribunals alongside courts
- Speed and cost: simpler procedure and cheaper access — service disputes before the CAT; the NGT, set up in 2010 for expeditious disposal of environmental cases.
- Expertise: technical members bring domain knowledge — company law (NCLT), securities (SAT), environment (NGT).
- Docket relief: High Courts are freed of routine service, tax and regulatory matters.
- Caveat: L. Chandra Kumar (1997) kept tribunals under High Court review, and executive control over appointments has repeatedly weakened their independence.
Impact of the 2021 rationalisation
- The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished appellate bodies such as the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, moving their work to High Courts and commercial courts, and prescribed uniform selection, tenure and service conditions for the rest.
- Gains: fewer overlapping forums, uniform rules, lower establishment costs.
- Costs: heavier load on congested High Courts, loss of specialist benches, and vacancies that keep surviving tribunals short-handed.
- Independence unresolved: the Court had struck down the same four-year tenure and minimum-age rules in Madras Bar Association (2021), yet the Act re-enacted them; a National Tribunals Commission remains pending.
Tribunals remain indispensable for specialised, speedy justice, but the 2021 reform rationalised structures more than it secured independence — a National Tribunals Commission with judicial primacy would complete it.
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.