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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more