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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...