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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...