POLITY
9. Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial
bodies.
Statutory
Tribunals
Tribunals:
1. Tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution that is set up to deal with problems such as resolving
administrative or tax-related disputes.
2. They are constituted with the objective of delivering speedy, inexpensive and decentralised
adjudication of disputes in various matters.
3. They are created to avoid the regular courts’ route for dispensation of disputes.
4. They run in parallel to the courts and generally are less formal, less expensive and less time
consuming.
5. They are not originally a part of the Constitution.
6. The 42nd Amendment Act introduced these provisions in accordance with
the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee.
7. The Amendment introduced Part XIV-A to the Constitution, which deals with ‘Tribunals’
and contains two articles:
1. Article 323A deals with Administrative Tribunals. These are quasi-judicial institutions
that resolve disputes related to the recruitment and service conditions of persons
engaged in public service.
2. Article 323B deals with tribunals for other subjects such as Taxation, Industrial and
labour, Foreign exchange, import and export, Land reforms, Food, Ceiling on urban
property, Elections to Parliament and state legislatures, Rent and tenancy rights.
Problems in functioning of Tribunals
1. Tribunals operate under the thumb of parent administrative ministries against whom
many of them are meant to pass orders, therefore remaining at their mercy with visible and
invisible strings for facilities, infrastructure and also rule-making.
2. The secretary of the said Ministry sits on the panel for selecting and reappointing the
adjudicating members and also has a role to play in disciplinary committees.
3. For instance, the defence secretary is a part of the committee for selection and re-
appointment of members of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and the said secretary is that very
, officer against whom all tribunal orders are to be passed.
4. Under the garb of providing cheaper and informal adjudication, appeals have been
provided, on very limited grounds, directly to the Supreme Court from some tribunals making
access to justice a far call with some litigants accepting injustice rather than challenging
orders simply because they cannot afford prohibitive costs of litigation in the apex court.
5. Persons who at times have served as part of the same ministries are appointed as members
and who carry with them their own personal experiences and over-familiarity making
justice subjective as compared to judges who bear no such baggage and are trained to be
objective.
6. A majority of non-judicial members are not legally qualified and hence are not even
eligible to appear before such tribunals while they are allowed to exercise judicial functions
while sitting on the bench.
7. Some tribunals are not even vested with powers of civil contempt thereby leaving
them toothless qua enforcement.
Conclusion:
Considering the ineffectiveness of tribunals in the past there is a need to look for alternative
dispute redressal mechanism, something which goes beyond formal structure – yet is guided by
the rule bound and predicted path.
The court rightly declined to interfere with the appointment, as the equivalence found in the rules
falls under the domain of Parliament.
At a time when the need, relevance and composition of tribunals are under judicial scrutiny,
and the Centre itself has abolished some of them, it would be salutary if the government spelt out
with clarity, as the court has suggested, the extent to which a bureaucrat’s involvement in
environmental matters could be regarded as equivalent to expertise.
It should also show greater urgency in implementing earlier Supreme Court directions to
constitute a National Tribunals Commission to supervise the appointment and functioning of
tribunals.
Community-based approach herein can help resolve water related disputes effectively, amicably
and sustainably.
, NGT
National Green Tribunal was established in 2010 under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to dispose
of cases having environmental ramification. Its headed by retired judge of supreme court or being
chief justice of high court and almost 20 experts and 20 judicial members.
Mandate of NGT
1. To dispose of cases dealing with any environment law violation, conservation of forests and
natural resources.
Eg. The NGT has the power to hear all civil cases relating to environmental issues including the
following:
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
2. Recommend penalties and fine.human
3. Recommend policies for environment protection.
4. Disposal of applications or appeals finally within 6 months of filing of the application.
5. Enforcement of any legal right relating to environment
6. Giving relief and compensation for damages
7. Has power of civil courts.
8. The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
is guided by principles of natural justice.
Achievements of NGT
Speedy environmental justice in environmental matters: Since it began operations in July 2011 and till
May, 2020, the NGT has heard 32,626 cases, of which 29,760 have been disposed off.
Strengthened the concept of Environmental Justice in India: Over the years NGT has emerged as a vital
player in environmental regulation, passing strict orders on issues ranging from pollution to deforestation,
waste management to protection the rights of tribal communities.
Technical judgments: NGT has employed legal and scientific methods and assessed environment impact
assessment reports before deciding,
Created a new breed of legal practitioners with expertise in environmental laws.
Significant judgments of the NGT over the years
In 2012, NGT suspended the clearance given to the South Korean steel maker, POSCO, to set up a 12 million-tonne steel
plant in Odisha in favour of the nearby communities and forests.
In 2012 Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India case, NGT gave judgment of entire prohibition on open burning of waste on
lands, which include landfills and directed states to implement Solid Waste Management Rules.
9. Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial
bodies.
Statutory
Tribunals
Tribunals:
1. Tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution that is set up to deal with problems such as resolving
administrative or tax-related disputes.
2. They are constituted with the objective of delivering speedy, inexpensive and decentralised
adjudication of disputes in various matters.
3. They are created to avoid the regular courts’ route for dispensation of disputes.
4. They run in parallel to the courts and generally are less formal, less expensive and less time
consuming.
5. They are not originally a part of the Constitution.
6. The 42nd Amendment Act introduced these provisions in accordance with
the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee.
7. The Amendment introduced Part XIV-A to the Constitution, which deals with ‘Tribunals’
and contains two articles:
1. Article 323A deals with Administrative Tribunals. These are quasi-judicial institutions
that resolve disputes related to the recruitment and service conditions of persons
engaged in public service.
2. Article 323B deals with tribunals for other subjects such as Taxation, Industrial and
labour, Foreign exchange, import and export, Land reforms, Food, Ceiling on urban
property, Elections to Parliament and state legislatures, Rent and tenancy rights.
Problems in functioning of Tribunals
1. Tribunals operate under the thumb of parent administrative ministries against whom
many of them are meant to pass orders, therefore remaining at their mercy with visible and
invisible strings for facilities, infrastructure and also rule-making.
2. The secretary of the said Ministry sits on the panel for selecting and reappointing the
adjudicating members and also has a role to play in disciplinary committees.
3. For instance, the defence secretary is a part of the committee for selection and re-
appointment of members of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and the said secretary is that very
, officer against whom all tribunal orders are to be passed.
4. Under the garb of providing cheaper and informal adjudication, appeals have been
provided, on very limited grounds, directly to the Supreme Court from some tribunals making
access to justice a far call with some litigants accepting injustice rather than challenging
orders simply because they cannot afford prohibitive costs of litigation in the apex court.
5. Persons who at times have served as part of the same ministries are appointed as members
and who carry with them their own personal experiences and over-familiarity making
justice subjective as compared to judges who bear no such baggage and are trained to be
objective.
6. A majority of non-judicial members are not legally qualified and hence are not even
eligible to appear before such tribunals while they are allowed to exercise judicial functions
while sitting on the bench.
7. Some tribunals are not even vested with powers of civil contempt thereby leaving
them toothless qua enforcement.
Conclusion:
Considering the ineffectiveness of tribunals in the past there is a need to look for alternative
dispute redressal mechanism, something which goes beyond formal structure – yet is guided by
the rule bound and predicted path.
The court rightly declined to interfere with the appointment, as the equivalence found in the rules
falls under the domain of Parliament.
At a time when the need, relevance and composition of tribunals are under judicial scrutiny,
and the Centre itself has abolished some of them, it would be salutary if the government spelt out
with clarity, as the court has suggested, the extent to which a bureaucrat’s involvement in
environmental matters could be regarded as equivalent to expertise.
It should also show greater urgency in implementing earlier Supreme Court directions to
constitute a National Tribunals Commission to supervise the appointment and functioning of
tribunals.
Community-based approach herein can help resolve water related disputes effectively, amicably
and sustainably.
, NGT
National Green Tribunal was established in 2010 under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to dispose
of cases having environmental ramification. Its headed by retired judge of supreme court or being
chief justice of high court and almost 20 experts and 20 judicial members.
Mandate of NGT
1. To dispose of cases dealing with any environment law violation, conservation of forests and
natural resources.
Eg. The NGT has the power to hear all civil cases relating to environmental issues including the
following:
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
2. Recommend penalties and fine.human
3. Recommend policies for environment protection.
4. Disposal of applications or appeals finally within 6 months of filing of the application.
5. Enforcement of any legal right relating to environment
6. Giving relief and compensation for damages
7. Has power of civil courts.
8. The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
is guided by principles of natural justice.
Achievements of NGT
Speedy environmental justice in environmental matters: Since it began operations in July 2011 and till
May, 2020, the NGT has heard 32,626 cases, of which 29,760 have been disposed off.
Strengthened the concept of Environmental Justice in India: Over the years NGT has emerged as a vital
player in environmental regulation, passing strict orders on issues ranging from pollution to deforestation,
waste management to protection the rights of tribal communities.
Technical judgments: NGT has employed legal and scientific methods and assessed environment impact
assessment reports before deciding,
Created a new breed of legal practitioners with expertise in environmental laws.
Significant judgments of the NGT over the years
In 2012, NGT suspended the clearance given to the South Korean steel maker, POSCO, to set up a 12 million-tonne steel
plant in Odisha in favour of the nearby communities and forests.
In 2012 Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India case, NGT gave judgment of entire prohibition on open burning of waste on
lands, which include landfills and directed states to implement Solid Waste Management Rules.
