I believe that the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts has some validity, but it is not necessarily an entirely accurate representation of the situation. While it is true that tribunals do exercise specific jurisdiction in certain areas, this does not necessarily mean that they curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts in all aspects.

Tribunals in India have been established under various laws to deal with specific matters such as labor disputes, taxation issues, administrative decisions, and so on. They often have specialized knowledge and expertise in these areas which allows for efficient and expert resolution of disputes. By diverting specific cases to these tribunals, the burden on ordinary courts is reduced, enabling them to focus on other matters.

However, it can be argued that this specialization of jurisdiction does limit the powers of ordinary courts. The jurisdiction of tribunals is limited to the specific subject matter they deal with, which means that ordinary courts cannot take up cases falling within the ambit of a tribunal. This restricts the discretionary power of ordinary courts to a certain extent.

In terms of constitutional validity, the establishment of tribunals in India is primarily governed by Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution. These provisions allow for the creation of tribunals to adjudicate specific matters. However, the constitutional validity and competency of tribunals have been subject to debate and judicial scrutiny.

The Supreme Court of India has often examined the constitutional validity of tribunals in various cases. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the court held that certain key attributes of the judiciary, such as independence, impartiality, and judicial review, need to be safeguarded while establishing tribunals. The court also emphasized the need for an independent and effective appellate mechanism to review the decisions of these tribunals.

Furthermore, the competency of tribunals in India has been a matter of concern. There have been instances where the qualifications and expertise of tribunal members have been questioned, affecting the effectiveness and credibility of their decisions. Additionally, delays in the appointment of members and lack of infrastructure have also hindered the functioning of tribunals.

In conclusion, while it can be argued that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts to some extent, they also serve the purpose of providing specialized expertise and efficient resolution of specific disputes. The constitutional validity and competency of tribunals in India have been examined by the judiciary, but concerns regarding independence, impartiality, and effective appellate mechanisms still need to be addressed.

The Relationship Between Tribunals and Ordinary Courts: A Balancing Act

The view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts is a complex one, with merits on both sides. Here's a nuanced analysis:

Arguments for curtailment:

• Jurisdictional overlap: Tribunals often deal with matters traditionally within the domain of ordinary courts, creating potential conflict and duplication. This can lead to forum shopping, where parties choose the forum most favorable to them, undermining judicial efficiency.
• Erosion of judicial authority: The creation of specialized tribunals can be seen as a diminishing of the role of the judiciary, particularly the High Courts and Supreme Court, which are the ultimate arbiters of law.
• Lack of uniformity: A proliferation of tribunals can lead to inconsistent jurisprudence and interpretation of law, as different tribunals may have differing approaches.

Arguments against curtailment:

• Specialization and expertise: Tribunals are designed for specific sectors, enabling them to develop expertise and handle complex issues more effectively than general courts. This can lead to faster and more efficient resolution of disputes.
• Reduced burden on ordinary courts: By taking on specialized tasks, tribunals free up the ordinary courts to focus on more complex and fundamental legal matters.
• Increased access to justice: Tribunals often have less formal procedures and are more accessible to the common person, promoting greater participation in the legal system.

Constitutional Validity and Competency of Tribunals in India:

The Constitution of India, under Article 323A, empowers Parliament to create administrative tribunals for specific sectors. This power is based on the principle of "separation of powers," with the legislature being responsible for setting up institutions and the judiciary for interpreting and applying the law.

Constitutional Validity:

• Tribunals in India are generally considered valid, as they operate under a specific legislative mandate. However, their creation must adhere to the principles of fairness, natural justice, and due process, ensuring a right to a fair hearing and independent adjudication.
• Any challenges to the constitutional validity of tribunals usually center around:
• Violations of fundamental rights: If tribunals violate a citizen's right to equality, freedom of speech, or other fundamental rights.
• Exceeding legislative competence: If a tribunal encroaches upon the jurisdiction of ordinary courts without proper legislative backing.
• Violation of the principle of separation of powers: If there is undue interference by the executive branch in the functioning of the tribunal.

Competency:

• The competency of tribunals is defined by the statute that creates them. They can only adjudicate disputes within the specific domain assigned to them.
• The competence of a tribunal is subject to judicial review. Ordinary courts can examine the jurisdiction and legality of the tribunal's decisions and intervene if necessary.

Conclusion:

The relationship between tribunals and ordinary courts is a delicate balance. While tribunals can enhance the efficiency and access to justice, they must be carefully designed and monitored to ensure their constitutional validity, competency, and fairness. The creation of tribunals should be guided by a clear need for specialized expertise, a focus on efficiency, and a commitment to upholding the fundamental rights and principles of a fair justice system.

Further Discussion Points:

• Should India adopt a more unified system of tribunals with clear jurisdictional boundaries to address the concerns of overlap and inconsistent jurisprudence?
• How can the role of tribunals be strengthened to ensure their legitimacy, transparency, and accountability?
• What are the challenges in ensuring a fair and independent judiciary within the tribunal system?

These are complex issues that require ongoing discussion and debate. By carefully considering these questions, we can ensure that India's tribunal system serves its intended purpose - to provide efficient and accessible justice without undermining the integrity and authority of the judicial system.

I partially agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. Tribunals are specialized bodies established to adjudicate specific disputes and provide a more efficient and expert-driven approach to justice. While they do divest ordinary courts of some jurisdiction, they also complement the courts by providing an alternative forum for dispute resolution. This diversion of jurisdiction is justified by the objective of providing speedy and specialized justice.

In India, the constitutional validity and competency of tribunals have been established through various judicial pronouncements and legislative enactments. The Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to create tribunals under Article 323-A and Article 323-B. These provisions enable the establishment of tribunals for the adjudication of disputes related to income tax, customs, and excise, among others.

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of tribunals in several cases, including:

1. L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997): The court held that tribunals are not an erosion of the jurisdiction of ordinary courts but rather a complementary mechanism to provide specialized justice.
2. Union of India vs. R. Gandhi (2010): The court emphasized that tribunals are not a substitute for courts but rather a supplement to the judicial system.

The competency of tribunals in India is ensured through various measures, including:

1. Judicial oversight: Tribunals are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court, ensuring that their decisions are in line with the Constitution and laws.
2. Statutory framework: Tribunals are established under specific statutes, which outline their jurisdiction, powers, and functions, ensuring clarity and predictability.
3. Independence and impartiality: Tribunals are designed to be independent and impartial, with members appointed through a transparent process.
4. Expertise: Tribunals are composed of experts in specific fields, ensuring that disputes are adjudicated by individuals with relevant knowledge and experience.

However, concerns regarding the competency of tribunals persist, including:

1. Lack of infrastructure and resources: Tribunals often face infrastructure and resource constraints, impacting their ability to function efficiently.
2. Delays and pendencies: Tribunals, like ordinary courts, are not immune to delays and pendencies, which can undermine their effectiveness.
3. Limited judicial review: While tribunals are subject to judicial oversight, the scope of judicial review is limited, which can lead to concerns about the correctness of tribunal decisions.

In conclusion, tribunals in India are constitutionally valid and competent, providing a specialized forum for dispute resolution. While they do divert some jurisdiction from ordinary courts, they complement the judicial system by offering expert-driven justice. However, concerns regarding infrastructure, delays, and limited judicial review need to be addressed to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of tribunals.