Skip to main content

Tribunals can’t become a parallel justice system: SC

A non-judicial forum should not be conferred with exclusive powers to decide the substantial question of law, says CJI Lodha

New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Thursday frowned at creation of tribunals at a drop of hat, wondering whether the government was trying to create a parallel justice delivery system vis-a-vis the courts.

“How can a tribunal, a forum which is not a judicial court, be conferred with exclusive powers to decide the substantial question of law” that is supposed to be the role of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, asked a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice R M Lodha.

Its observation came in the course of hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Tribunals. The Bench, which also included judges Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, noted how difficult it is becoming to find persons for manning the Tribunals as those are fit for the job are not interested and those who are keen are not suitable.

When Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi sought to defend the creation of tribunals to reduce the load of the High Courts clogged because of large number of pending cases, the Bench shot back: “Which is the enactment that confers the tribunals with exclusive power to decide the substantial question of law and if the validity of that Act has been upheld.”

“What are you achieving ultimately? You are making a mockery of the procedure,” the Bench snubbed Rohatgi when he argued that creation of tribunals has not eclipsed the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. It pointed out the huge problem in finding a right judicial person for tribunals dealing with specific areas of laws.

Chief Justice Lodha referred to the difficulty he had in finding a right judicial person for the Securities Appellate Tribunal even as he got requests in the last four days for the appointment of four judicial members on various tribunals.

“Many retired judges who are fit to be on the tribunals are not interested and those who are keen are not suitable,” the Chief Justice said, pointing out that the retirement age is mostly 68 in tribunals but the high court judges who retired three years ago are not interested as they are rather keen on arbitration as it comes with “tonic.”

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even