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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.