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.
It asks 2 things — 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, added by the 42nd Amendment (1976), let legislatures create tribunals so that specialised disputes need not queue before overburdened courts.
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 · Since then, in November 2025, the Supreme Court struck down provisions re-enacted with minor tweaks; judicial primacy in selection would let tribunals deliver speed with independence.
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”
- The government justified abolition on speed and cost grounds.PRS Legislative Research, Understanding tribunal reforms and challenges ↗“Such tribunals add considerable cost to the exchequer, and abolishing them would help reduce these costs.”
- The 2021 Act fixed a four-year term for tribunal chairpersons and members.The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (PRS) ↗“the Chairperson of a Tribunal shall hold office for a term of four years or till he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier”
- The 2021 Act set a minimum age of fifty for appointment.The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (PRS) ↗“Provided that a person who has not completed the age of fifty years shall not be eligible for appointment as a Chairperson or Member.”
- Since then, in November 2025, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the 2021 Act.All India Radio News, 19 Nov 2025 ↗“said the provisions had been re-enacted by the Centre with minor tweaks”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 215words · 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 are needed alongside courts
- Speed: simpler procedure; the NGT was set up in 2010 for expeditious disposal of environmental cases.
- Expertise: technical members serve company law (NCLT), securities (SAT) and service matters (CAT).
- Docket relief: High Courts shed routine service and tax cases.
- Judicial check: L. Chandra Kumar (1997) kept tribunals under High Court review; they supplement courts, not supplant them.
Impact of the 2021 rationalisation
- Abolition: the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished bodies such as the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal and IPAB, shifting work mainly to High Courts.
- Rationale: such tribunals had not sped up adjudication, yet added cost to the exchequer.
| Aspect | Gain | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Fewer overlapping forums | Heavier High Court load |
| Expertise | Lower exchequer cost | Specialist benches lost |
| Service rules | Uniformity | Executive control persists |
- Independence unresolved: a four-year term and a minimum age of fifty, struck down in Madras Bar Association (2021), were re-enacted.
Way forward
- National Tribunals Commission: an autonomous body for appointments and administration, as the Court urged.
Since then, in November 2025, the Supreme Court struck down provisions re-enacted 'with minor tweaks'. Judicial primacy in selection would let tribunals deliver speed with 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.
