GS Question

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.