REFORMING THE TRIBUNALS FRAMEWORK IN INDIA:

AN INTERIM REPORT

Arijeet Ghosh | Diksha Sanyal | Raunaq Chandrashekar | Reshma Sekhar

April 2018

www.vidhilegalpolicy.in
This Interim Report is an independent, non-commissioned piece of academic work.

The authors would like to thank Vidhi Senior Resident Fellows Alok Prasanna Kumar, Sumathi
Chandrashekaran, Neha Singhal; Research Fellows Lalit Panda and Sohini Chatterjee; Suchindran B.N
for their inputs; and Vidhi intern Abhishek Vyas for his assistance.

Errors, if any, in the Report are the authors’ alone.

We would also like to thank Tata Trusts for the support towards “Vidhi-Tata Trusts Fellowship,” under
which fellows will work on the Justice, Access, and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) project. This
multi-year initiative aims to advocate for and implement evidence-based reforms to eliminate
existing backlog in courts and ensure that they are disposed within reasonable timelines. Three Vidhi-
Tata Trusts Fellows have contributed to the present report to examine and analyse the tribunals
framework in India.

The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy is an independent think-tank doing legal research and assisting
government in making better laws.

For more information, see www.vidhilegalpolicy.in

About the Authors

Arijeet Ghosh, Diksha Sanyal, Raunaq Chandrashekhar & Reshma Sekhar are Research Fellows in
the Judicial Reforms Initiative at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

© Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, 2018

 Table of Contents

CONTENTS

Contents ...........................................................................................i

List of Figures and Tables ..................................................................... ii

List of Abbreviations .......................................................................... iii

Summary of Recommendations ............................................................. iv

1. Introduction ............................................................................... 1

2. The Tribunals Framework in India ................................................... 2

A. Law Commission of India Reports & Special Committees ............................. 2
B. Constitutionality of Tribunals.............................................................. 3
C. The NCLT and the NTT Cases ............................................................... 5
D. Attempts at Reforming the Tribunals Framework ..................................... 7

3. Problems with Tribunals.............................................................. 12

A. Lack of Independence with Tribunals .................................................. 13
B. Administrative Concerns: Non-Uniformity in Regulation ........................... 18
C. Pendency and Vacancy in Tribunals .................................................... 19
D. Jurisdiction of the High Courts .......................................................... 20

4. Rationalisation of Tribunals ......................................................... 22

A. Tribunals Framework in the United Kingdom......................................... 22
B. Rationalising Tribunals .................................................................... 23
C. Characteristics of the Model ............................................................. 25

5. National Tribunals Commission ..................................................... 27

A. Envisaging a National Tribunals Commission .......................................... 27
B. Remedying the Issues with Tribunals .................................................. 29

6. Way Forward ............................................................................ 33

Annexures ............................................................................................ 34

i
 List of Figures and Tables

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1: Composition of Selection Committee ................................................ 14

Figure 2: Inquiry Requirements for Central Tribunals ........................................ 15
Figure 3: Provisions on Reappointment ......................................................... 16
Figure 4: Model for a Tribunals Framework .................................................... 25
Figure 5: Organisational Structure of the NTC ................................................. 27

Table 1: Tribunals Under Respective Nodal Ministries........................................ 17

Table 2: Rationalisation of Tribunals............................................................. 24

ii
 List of Abbreviations

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Tribunal

AAIFR Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

AAR-CS Authority of Advance Rulings- Customs Sales

AAR-IT Authority of Advance Rulings- Income Tax

AAT Airport Appellate Tribunal

AERAAT Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal

AFT Armed Forces Tribunal

APTEL Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange

ATFE Appellate Tribunal for Electricity

ATFP Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property

CAT Central Administrative Tribunal

CESTAT Customs, Excise, Sales Tax Appellate Authority

COMPAT Competition Appellate Tribunal

CSTAA Customs Sales Tax Appellate Authority

CWDT Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal

CyAT Cyber Appellate Tribunal

DRAT Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal

DRT Debt Recovery Tribunal

EPFAT Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

FCAT Film Certification Appellate Tribunal

IPAB Intellectual Property Appellate Board

ITAT Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

KWDT-II Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal- II

MWDT Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal

NCDRC National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission

NCLAT National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

NCLT National Company Law Tribunal

NGT National Green Tribunal

NHT National Highways Tribunal

RBWDT Ravi & Beas Water Disputes Tribunal

RCT Railways Claims Tribunal

REAT Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

RRT Railway Rates Tribunal

SAT Securities Appellate Tribunal

TDSAT Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal

VWDT Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal

iii
 Summary of Recommendations

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

This interim report on tribunals forms the basis for consultation with stakeholders to streamline the
functioning of tribunals in India. It assesses the tribunals framework, traces its origins, evolution,
attempts at reforms, and proposes an alternative framework that could operate with independence
and uniformity.

Tribunals are statutory adjudicatory bodies that address disputes that fall within the ambit of their
parent statutes. Although tribunals are supposed to reduce the backlog of cases in courts and
expedite decisions in matters involving domain knowledge, in practice the intention has been
defeated. This is due to the erratic and inconsistent manner in which the various central tribunals
have been constituted. Two broad issues hamper the effectiveness of tribunals: (a) the absence of
uniformity and coherence across the framework; (b) lack of independence. This interim report
addresses both these issues and provides recommendations that can be further developed through
consultations with stakeholders.

The recommendations are summarised as follows:

1. The tribunals framework can operate under an independent statutory body, provisionally
called the National Tribunals Commission (NTC).
2. The existing 37 central tribunals can be merged into nine distinct subject-matter divisions.
3. The NTC can be set up by a statute of Parliament and operate through a Board that comprises
sitting judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, executive members nominated by
central government and a senior advocate.
4. The senior-most Supreme Court judge will be the de facto Chairperson of the Board.
5. The NTC will appoint a Chief Executive Officer who will implement the decisions of the Board
and manage the day-to-day functioning. The tenure of NTC members will be for three-years
with no reappointment to ensure a dynamic and impartial body.
6. There will be no direct appeal to the Supreme Court from a tribunal. Statutory appeals to
High Courts can be allowed for cases that involve substantial questions of law.
7. To ensure operational coherence, there will be uniform service conditions:

Condition Recommendations (Read Chapter 5 for details)

Appointment of Members • Board should appoint a selection committee; or

• Call for applications via open advertisements; or
• Hold an All-India Entrance Examination for Tribunals (AIEET)

iv
 Summary of Recommendations

Qualifications of Members • Qualifications of chairperson should be uniform across all

tribunals
• Technical members should have a minimum of 15 years domain
expertise
• Retired persons and members of the Indian Legal Services,
Revenue Services etc. and bureaucrats should not be eligible to
be appointed as judicial members

Reappointment • There should be a bar on reappointment of tribunal members

Tenure • There should be a tenure of 5-7 years; or a retirement age of

62-65 years, whichever is earlier (depending on mode of
appointment)

Vacancy • Vacancies arising in tribunals should be filled up within 6

months prior to the occurrence of a vacancy

Salaries and other • Salaries and other allowances should be uniform across all
allowances tribunals

Removal of Members • The removal procedure should be uniform with a time bound
inquiry carried out by a judge from the higher judiciary

v
 Introduction 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Tribunals in India have been a long-standing feature of the judicial system, beginning with the setting
up of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as early as 1941. The 42nd Amendment in 1976, which
inserted Article 323-A and 323-B in to the Constitution, empowered both the Parliament and state
legislatures to establish administrative and other tribunals. With this insertion, tribunals, as an
alternate method of adjudication, received constitutional legitimacy. Despite this, over the years,
tribunals have been a subject of much judicial scrutiny. With successive verdicts from the Supreme
Court, starting with the S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India1 (“Sampath Kumar”) to more recently
the Madras Bar Association v Union of India2 (“NTT case”), there exists considerable jurisprudence
in determining the constitutional fetters of tribunals.

Recently, there have been developments in the discourse around tribunal reforms, especially with
the enactment of the Finance Act, 2017. This was followed by a comprehensive analysis of the
statutory framework of tribunals by the Law Commission of India.3 While the Finance Act has
attempted to address the question of tribunalisation by merging certain tribunals, its logical and
constitutional bases have come under question before the Supreme Court. This brings the discourse
to a crucial juncture by begging the question of what makes for an independent, uniform, and
efficient tribunals framework.

This interim report tries to answer this question. It has been structured into five chapters that trace
the history and evolution of tribunals followed by an analysis of the reformatory attempts. It
recommends an alternate model for rationalising tribunals in India and a National Tribunals
Commission as a statutory body responsible for the administration of tribunals.

1
(1987) 1 SCC 124
2
(2014) 10 SCC 1
3
Law Commission of India, 272nd Report titled “Assessment of Statutory Frameworks of Tribunals in India”,
(hereinafter “Law Commission of India, 272nd Report”) Available on:
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report272.pdf (last accessed on 8th March, 2018)
 The Tribunals Framework in India 2

2. THE TRIBUNALS FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

The issue of delays and backlog is a central theme in the discourse surrounding the judiciary and
judicial reforms in India and has been one, dating back to the colonial era. Efforts have been made
to address this issue: from the Justice Rankin Committee Report in 1924,4 to the various reports of
the Law Commission of India,5 a plethora of recommendations have been made with specific emphasis
on reducing the backlog of cases in the judiciary. However, delay in adjudication of cases remains an
unresolved issue even today. As of 2017, more than 26 million cases are still pending across the courts
in India.6

Judicial backlog and delay has also been a key reason behind the introduction of tribunals in India.7
Before the creation of a parallel system of adjudication in the form of tribunals, extensive debates
took place amongst various government bodies. An understanding of these debates is the first step
to understanding the origin of tribunals in India.

A. Law Commission of India Reports & Special Committees

In its 14th Report titled “Reforms of Administration of Justice”, the First Law Commission of India
was faced with the question of whether to create tribunals for specific subject areas, to make the
dispensation of justice more speedy and less expensive.8 While rejecting the idea of a general system
of Administrative Courts,9 it stated that such a system could be only supplemental in nature and
could not supplant ordinary courts of law.10 The idea of a dedicated tribunal to deal with service
matters was endorsed for two reasons. First, such a tribunal would provide speedy remedy in genuine
cases of injustice; and second, that a speaking order of a qualified tribunal would help ordinary civil
courts to summarily dispose of frivolous litigation.11 These recommendations were subsequently
reiterated by the High Courts Arrears Committee in 1972, which suggested the establishment of an

4
Arun K. Thiruvengadam, ‘Tribunals’, Chapter 23, pp-412-431, in Oxford handbook of the Indian Constitution,
Oxford University Press, 2016 edited by Sujit Choudhry; Madhav Khosla; Pratap Bhanu Mehta, at p. 414
5
Ibid. at p. 414, citing Reports of the Law Commission numbered 14, 44, 45, 58, 77, 79, 80, 120, 121, 124 and
215.
6
National Judicial Data Grid, Available at: http://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdg_public/main.php# (last accessed on
20th December, 2017)
7
Arun K. Thiruvengadam, (n 4) at p. 413
8
Law Commission of India, 14th Report titled “Reform of Judicial Administration”, 1958, Available at:
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report14Vol2.pdf (last accessed on 20th December, 2017) at pp. 671-
698
9
Ibid. at p. 693
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid. at p 692; Service matters were defined as: Disputes between “government servants and the government,
where the servants seek redressal for real or fancied violations of their constitutional safeguards for the breach
of rules regulating their conditions of service.”
 The Tribunals Framework in India 3

independent tribunal to deal with service matters, in a bid to reduce the congestion of cases in the
High Courts.12

The Sixth Law Commission took a contrasting stand on tribunals and suggested against the creation
of separate tribunals or courts for service matters.13 In their opinion, curtailing the power of
supervisory and appellate14 jurisdictions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court was necessary to
reduce the arrears in these Courts.15 However as it was not feasible to curtail these powers, it found
the existing system of grievance redressal to be adequate.16

Subsequently, the emergency period saw a push for the establishment of tribunals.17 The Swaran
Singh Committee was set up to revisit the Constitution and suggest amendments to it.18 The
Committee acknowledged the mounting arrears in the High Courts and introduced the 42nd
Amendment to the Constitution while inserting Part XIV-A.19 It consisted of two new provisions: Article
323A and 323B, which empowered the Parliament and state legislatures to establish administrative
tribunals and tribunals for other matters respectively. Furthermore, it recommended that the
decisions of the tribunals should only be subject to Article 136 of the Constitution, to the exclusion
of all other courts.20 Notably, while this recommendation discussed the exclusion of writ jurisdiction
of the High Courts under Article 226, it offered no rationale for the exclusion of the Supreme Court’s
writ jurisdiction.21

B. Constitutionality of Tribunals

Post the 42nd Amendment, the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted by the Parliament to
provide speedy and inexpensive justice to aggrieved government servants. However, the enactment
of the Act also gave rise to the first challenge regarding the constitutionality of tribunals.

In Sampath Kumar, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had to determine the constitutionality
of Section 28 of the Act, which ousted the power of judicial review of the Supreme Court and High

12
The High Court Arrears Committee under the Chairmanship of J.C. Shah,. Available at:
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/comitrep/HighCourtArrearsCommittee1972.pdf (last accessed on 20th
December, 2017) at p. 70
13
Law Commission of India, 58th Report titled “Structure and Jurisdiction of the Higher Judiciary”, 1974,
Available at: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report58.pdf (last accessed on 20th December, 2017),
at p. 102
14
The High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme
Court exercises Appellate Jurisdiction under Articles 132, 133 and 136 of the Constitution of India.
15
Law Commission of India, 58th Report, 1974, at p. 102
16
Ibid. at p. 103
17
Arun K Thiruvengadam suggests that “a part of hostility towards the idea of tribunals can be attributed to
their insertion into the constitutional scheme during the Emergency imposed by the Indira Gandhi government.”
For a detailed analysis please refer (n 4) at pp. 416-420
18
Swaran Singh Committee Report, (1976) 2 SCC (Jour) 45
19
Please see: the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of
India.
20
Swaran Singh Committee Report, Part IV, Item V
21
It has been understood that the ouster of the writ jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and the High Court in
regard to decisions of the tribunals was a way to restrict the power of the respective Courts, as the judiciary
was the only institution which opposed the curtailment of the freedoms guaranteed to the citizens during the
Emergency Period.
 The Tribunals Framework in India 4

Courts. The bench concluded that the creation of ‘alternative institutional mechanisms’, which were
as competent as High Courts, would not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.22 It also passed
directions with respect to qualifications of tribunal members, manner of appointment, etc.23 With
regard to the appointment process, the court stated that the recommendations of a High Powered
Selection Committee (chaired by the Chief Justice of India or his/her designate) must be ordinarily
followed, unless reasons for not following them are furnished.24

However, a decision by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sakinala Harinath and Ors. v State of
Andhra Pradesh and Ors,25 offered a different approach and stated that a provision ousting the power
of judicial review of High Courts and Supreme Court, would be violative of the basic structure
doctrine.26 Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in R.K. Jain v Union of India (“R.K. Jain”),27 criticised
the rationale behind the decision in Sampath Kumar and emphasized that the power of judicial review
of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be excluded even by a constitutional amendment.28

Finally, a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India29 (“L. Chandra
Kumar”) conclusively held that the power of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 to exercise
judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals, is a part of the basic structure
of the Constitution.30 It also stated that “all decisions of Tribunals, whether created pursuant to
Article 323A or Article 323B of the Constitution, will be subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High
Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within
whose territorial jurisdiction the particular tribunal falls.”31 In the opinion of the court, it would
serve two purposes: First, frivolous claims will be filtered by tribunals before they reach the High
Court; and second, the High Court will have the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will
assist in finally deciding the matter.32 However, whether the creation of tribunals has indeed served
these purposes, remains a question for further research.

The court also suggested remedying the issue of malfunctioning of tribunals by setting up an
independent agency for their administration, preferably in the form of a single nodal ministry.33 The
Union Ministry of Law and Justice was considered to be the appropriate ministry, with the additional

22
Ibid. at para 4 (J. Bhagwati’s judgment)
23
Ibid. at paras 5-7 (J. Bhagwati’s Judgement); For the post of Chairman, the court stated that the person should
be only from the judiciary and has to have the rank of a Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court. They also
specifically stated that a Secretary to the government, who has no legal or judicial experience, will not be an
effective substitute, leading to the violation of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In regard to Vice
Chairman, the qualification necessary were that of a District Judge or advocate who is qualified to be a judge
of the High Court.
24
Ibid. at para 8 (J. Bhagwati’s judgment)
25
1993 (3) ALT 471
26
Ibid. at paras 68 and 69
27
AIR 1993 SC 1769
28
Ibid. at para 89
29
AIR 1997 SC 1125
30
Ibid. at para 91
31
Ibid. at paras 93,94 and 95
32
Ibid. at para 91
33
Ibid. at para 97
 The Tribunals Framework in India 5

power given to the ministry to appoint an independent supervisory body to oversee the working of
the tribunals.34

It also addressed issues in relation to appointments to administrative tribunals, where it emphasized

that the tribunals needed to have a judicious mix of both special members and judicial members.35
The court recommended the inclusion of a Supreme Court judge in the constitution of selection
committee for appointment of members to the tribunal as a means to maintain the independence of
tribunals.36 Finally, it stated that the tribunals performed a ‘supplemental’ role as opposed to a
‘substitutional’ role to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.37

The early phase of litigation on tribunals focussed on the constitutionality of setting up tribunals
without affecting the inherent powers of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The decision of L.
Chandra Kumar marked the end of this phase, by upholding the constitutional validity of tribunals if
certain conditions were met. The most important of these conditions was the non-exclusion of the
writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32
of the Constitution.

C. The NCLT and the NTT Cases

With the constitutionality of tribunals entrenched, the focus has shifted to the efficient and effective
functioning of tribunals. Being recognized as a parallel system of adjudication has ensured that the
tribunals enjoy same level of independence as courts. These two themes have recurred in all litigation
post L. Chandra Kumar. Two cases are particularly relevant, i.e. Union of India v R. Gandhi38 (“NCLT
Case”) in 2010 and the NTT Case in 2014.

a) Independence of Tribunals

In the NCLT Case, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court had to deal with the constitutional
validity of the NCLT and the NCLAT. The judgment listed out 14 major defects in the law establishing
these tribunals, which needed to be remedied to stand the test of constitutionality.39 In particular,
the court focussed on the issue of the independence of these tribunals.40

The court observed that the independence of the tribunals was compromised by the inclusion of the
secretary of the ‘sponsoring department’ in the selection committee. Additionally, tribunals were
dependent on these departments for funding, infrastructure, working space, etc., which created a

34
Ibid.
35
Ibid. at para 96
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid. at para 94
38
(2010) 11 SCC 1; The judgment in NCLT Case has been reiterated in Madras Bar Association v Union of India
(Madras Bar Association-II) (2015) 8 SCC 583, which is a sequel to the NCLT Case. It dealt with the amendments
brought to the Companies Act, 1956 by the Companies Act, 2013.
39
Ibid. at para 56
40
Ibid. at para 15
 The Tribunals Framework in India 6

scope for interference by the department. Civil servants who became members of tribunals often
retained lien with their parent cadre, leading to further executive interference.

In order to maintain the independence of the tribunals, the court suggested a four-member selection
committee chaired by the Chief Justice of India or his/her nominee, a senior judge of the Supreme
Court or Chief Justice of High Court, Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, and
Secretary in the Ministry of Law and Justice as members.41 Furthermore, for the removal/suspension
of the President/Chairperson of tribunals, the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India was mandated
to ensure the independence of tribunals.

Subsequently, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in NTT Case struck down the National Tax
Tribunal Act, 2005 (NTT Act) as unconstitutional. While doing so, the court enumerated certain
principles that dealt with the issue regarding independence. First, the court struck down the
provision42 empowering the central government to decide the location, jurisdiction and constitution
of benches, transfer of members, etc. as excessive executive interference. As the government was
itself a stakeholder before the tribunal, such powers were seen to be compromising the independence
of the tribunal.43

Similar to the criticism in the NCLT Case, the provision44 for the composition of the selection
committee for Chairpersons/Members of the NTT, was also struck down as it consisted of more
executive members than judicial members. A majority of executive members in the selection
committee would, in the opinion of the court, compromise the independence of the tribunal.45 Also,
the reappointment provision46 was seen as undermining the impartiality of the tribunals. It was
speculated that such a provision would constrain the decision-making ability of the
Chairpersons/Members in way that would favour them to get reappointed.47

b) Efficiency of Tribunals

From R.K. Jain to L. Chandra Kumar, the courts have tried to shed light on the issue of malfunctioning
of tribunals and have offered recommendations. A consistent recommendation has been to entrust
the Ministry of Law and Justice with the duty to administer tribunals.

This suggestion was reiterated in the NCLT Case, where the court additionally suggested that no
facilities should be provided from the respective sponsoring or concerned departments or parent
ministries.48 Non-uniformity in relation to appointment process, qualifications required, service
conditions, removal procedure etc., was also highlighted as a cause for malfunction. This issue of
non-uniformity has been recognized by the central government by the tabling of The Tribunals,

41
Ibid. at para 56 (ix)
42
Section 5 of the NTT Act
43
NTT Case, at para 81 (J. Khehar’s judgement)
44
Section 7 of the NTT Act
45
NTT Case, at para 88 (J. Khehar’s judgement)
46
Section 8 of the NTT Act
47
NTT Case at para 89 (J. Khehar’s judgement)
48
NCLT Case, at para 56 (xiii)
 The Tribunals Framework in India 7

Appellate Tribunals and Other Authorities (Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014 and the notifying of The
Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions
of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, enacted under the Finance Act, 2017.

The growth of tribunals and its consolidation in the Indian legal system can be understood through
the lens of various precedents that have been laid down overtime. From the issues of
constitutionality, the discourse on tribunals has now shifted to make them a more efficient system
of adjudication, while ensuring that they retain the same amount of independence as regular courts.
As certain attempts have been made in the past decade to remedy the problems, the next part
critically analyses these attempts made to reform the tribunals framework in India.

D. Attempts at Reforming the Tribunals Framework

In this part, three recent attempts at reforming the tribunal system have been analysed. These are:

1. 74th Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the “The Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals
and Other Authorities (Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014”.
2. Finance Act, 2017.
3. 272nd Law Commission of India Report on “Assessment of Statutory Frameworks of Tribunals
in India”.

a) 74th Parliamentary Standing Committee Report

In 2014, The Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and Other Authorities (Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014
was tabled to standardise the conditions of service of members across tribunals. Although the Bill
was withdrawn on 11th April, 2017,49 the analysis of the provisions of the Bill carried out by the
Parliamentary Standing Committee needs to be mentioned. In its 74th Report titled on the Bill,50 the
following recommendations made are relevant:

1. Regulatory bodies should not be included in the definition of tribunals.51

2. The retirement age of Chairperson and Members of all tribunals should be uniformly set at
70 years.52
3. Tenure of members should be for a period of 7 years or more so that they develop adequate
expertise in the domain area.53

49
PRS Legislative Research, status of the Bill, available at: http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-tribunals-
appellate-tribunals-and-other-authorities-conditions-of-service-bill-2014-3141/ (last accessed on 1st March,
2018)
50
Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice,
“ 74th Report, The Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and Other Authorities (Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014”,
Available on:
http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20Personnel,%20PublicGrie
vances,%20Law%20and%20Justice/74.pdf(last accessed on 27th February, 2018)
51
Ibid. at para 13
52
Ibid. at para 18
53
Ibid. at para 18
 The Tribunals Framework in India 8

4. In order to induct younger and dynamic members, a regular appointment model should be
adopted. This would also remedy the issue of tribunals becoming a “safe haven” for retired
judges.54
5. Uniform grounds of removal should be enumerated in law.55
6. A National Tribunal Commission should be set up to oversee the administration of tribunals
and standardise the selection process, removal, eligibility criteria for appointment, etc.56

However, none of the recommendations were implemented. Post the withdrawal of the Bill, the next
attempt by the Government to reform the tribunals framework was through the enactment of the
Finance Act, 2017.

b) The Finance Act, 2017 & Rules

In an unprecedented move, the Finance Act of 2017 merged eight tribunals according to functional
similarity. Such a move being instituted in the form of a Money Bill raises questions of constitutional
legitimacy which falls outside the scope of this interim report. However, these questions have been
challenged by way of writ petition in front of the Supreme Court and is currently pending.57 The list
of the tribunals that have been merged are given below:

1. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal with The Industrial Tribunal
2. The Copyright Board with The Intellectual Property Appellate Board
3. The Railways Rates Tribunal with The Railways Claims Tribunal
4. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange with The Appellate Tribunal (Smugglers and
Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976
5. The National Highways Tribunal with The Airport Appellate Tribunal
6. The Cyber Appellate Tribunal and The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate
Tribunal with The Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)
7. The Competition Appellate Tribunal with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

With the aim of bringing uniformity to service conditions of Chairpersons, Members, etc., the Finance
Act, 2017 amended the provisions of the parents statutes of 19 central tribunals.58 Additionally, it
empowered the central government, through notification, to make rules to provide for qualifications,
appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and other terms of
conditions of service of the tribunal members.59

54
Ibid. at paras 21, 22 & 23
55
Ibid. at para 30
56
Ibid. at para 38
57
Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 558 of 2017; Central Administrative Tribunal
(Principal Bench) Bar Association through its President v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640 of 2017;
All India Lawyers Union v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 778 of 2017; and Social Action for Forest and
Environment v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 561 of 2017
58
Please refer to: Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 Sections 158-182, also see: Eighth Schedule of the Finance
Act, 2017
59
Section 184, Finance Act, 2017
 The Tribunals Framework in India 9

Subsequently, the central government notified the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities
(Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 ( “new rules”).60
However, these rules raise several constitutional questions regarding independence of the tribunals.
They also violate Supreme Court precedents with regard to doctrine of separation of powers and
freedom from executive interference. An analysis of the rules is provided below:

(a) Qualification for Appointment of Members

As per the Schedule attached to the new rules, column three provides for the qualifications for the
appointment of members to the tribunals, including judicial and expert members. The qualifications
enumerated in the new rules, are more or less similar to the qualifications prescribed by the parent
statutes of the 19 tribunals.

(b) Method of Appointment

Rule 4 provides for the method of appointment. It states that the appointing body is the central
government which will carry out the appointments on the recommendation of a ‘Search-cum-
Selection Committee’. Additionally, it states that the secretary to the Government of India in the
Ministry/Department, shall be the ‘convener’ of the Search-cum-Selection Committee.61 With regard
to the Search-cum-Selection-Committee, the rules distinguish between the committee for Presiding
Officer/Chairman/ President/Vice President and the committee for judicial and expert members.
However, the composition of the committees for the 19 tribunals suggests that it violates the
precedent laid down in NCLT Case, wherein a selection committee should comprise of two judicial
members and two members from the Executive, with the casting vote to be exercised by the Chief
Justice of India or his nominee.62 A breakdown of the composition of the Search-cum-Selection
Committee for the 19 tribunals is provided in Annexure-A (Search-cum-Selection Committee
Compositions (under Finance Act, 2017)) to the report.

Out of the 19 tribunals, 1663 of them are not in line with the precedent of the Supreme Court in the
NCLT Case. Such composition of Search-Cum-Selection Committees where members of the Executive
or nominations made by the Executive are in majority, would be seen as to compromising the
independence of those respective tribunals.

(c) Term of Office

For all the 19 tribunals, the term of office has been fixed at three years. In the NCLT Case, the
Supreme Court stated that a term of seven or five years should be prescribed, as a term of three
years was considered to be too short a time for the members to achieve the required knowledge,
expertise and efficiency.64

60
Available at: http://dor.gov.in/sites/default/files/Rules%202017.pdf (last accessed on 12th November, 2017)
61
Rule 4 (2) of the New Rules
62
NCLT Case, at para 56 (ix)
63
Only CAT, AFT and NCLT are in consonance with the Supreme Court’s precedent.
64
NCLT Case, at para 56 (x)
 The Tribunals Framework in India 10

(d) Maximum Age for Holding Office

The maximum age of holding office varies from 62 to 70 years across all the 19 tribunals. However,
this defeats the purpose of bringing in uniformity in service conditions.

(e) Reappointment

Rule 9 of the new rules makes all the members of the tribunal eligible for reappointment. As the
provision regarding reappointment has been struck down in the NTT Case for having a direct bearing
on the independence of tribunals, Rule 9 can be deemed to be violating the precedent of the Supreme
Court.

(f) Removal of Member from Office

Rule 7 of the new rules empowers the central government to remove a member on the
recommendation of a committee which will be constituted by the central government. The grounds
for removal are the same as had been provided previously in the parent statutes of the 19 tribunals.

However, empowering the central government to constitute a committee, which would recommend
the removal of a member of the tribunal can have a direct bearing on the independence of the
tribunals. Such unfettered power given to the government, can lead to a situation where the decisions
passed by the tribunal members can be influenced for the fear of being removed if it is adversarial
to the government policy involved. Additionally, for the removal of a chairperson or member of the
NCLAT, the new rules mandates a consultation with Chief Justice of India. However, no rationale has
been provided for differential treatment afforded to NCLAT in comparison to the other 18 tribunals.

As is evident, the amendments brought through the Finance Act is problematic and do not adhere to
the constitutional standards laid down by the Supreme Court. This has been recognized in the
discourse on tribunals, as a result of which, the constitutionality of the rules has been challenged
along with the challenge to the Finance Act, 2017. In a recent development on the pending matter,
the Supreme Court has stayed the applicability of the new rules enacted under the Finance Act, 2017.
The order states that all appointments made to the tribunals will be on the basis of the old acts and
the rules.65

c) The 272nd Law Commission of India Report

In October, 2017, the Law Commission of India released its 272nd Report titled “Assessment of
Statutory Frameworks of Tribunals in India”. The report examined questions relating to appointment
process, provisions of direct appeals to the Supreme Court and other issues.66 The Law Commission
made the following recommendations:

65
Kudrat Sandhu v Union of India, Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 279/2017, order dated 9th February, 2018
66
Ibid. at para 43
 The Tribunals Framework in India 11

1. The members of tribunals should have similar qualifications to that of judges of the High
Court.67
2. Conditions on appointment, tenure and service conditions of members of the tribunals needs
to be standardised.68
3. The Selection Board/Committee responsible for appointing members should be headed by
the Chief Justice of India or a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or his nominee.69
4. Vacancy arising in the tribunals should be filled within six months prior to the occurrence of
vacancy.70
5. Every order emanating from the tribunal or its appellate forum should attain finality. Such
orders can be challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court having territorial
jurisdiction over the tribunal or its appellate forum.71
6. The Central Government should bestow the function of monitoring the working of the
tribunals to a single nodal agency to ensure uniformity in all affairs of the tribunals. The
nodal agency should preferably be the Ministry of Law and Justice.72

To sum up, over the last decade, both the judiciary as well as the legislature have tried to reform
the tribunals framework in India. While the objective of this chapter was to highlight the existing
discourse on tribunals at present, the next chapter tries to carry out an exhaustive analysis of the
problems that exist in the central tribunals in India.

67
Law Commission of India, 272nd Report, Recommendation A
68
Ibid. Recommendation B
69
Ibid. Recommendations C, D and E
70
Ibid. Recommendation F
71
Ibid. Recommendation H
72
Ibid. at para 10.10
 Problems with Tribunals 12

3. PROBLEMS WITH TRIBUNALS

As the Finance Act, 2017 is under challenge, the parent statutes, rules and regulations of all the
central tribunals prior to the enactment of the Act have been analysed in this chapter. A table
analysing theses statutes and rules has been compiled and attached as Annexure-B (Statutory
Framework of Central Tribunals). We highlight the overarching criticisms levelled against tribunals
since their inception and try to illustrate the problems that exist, which are:

a) Lack of independence
b) Administrative concerns: Non-uniformity in regulation
c) Jurisdiction of the High Courts

A list of central tribunals73 is provided below:

1. Airports Appellate Tribunal (AAT)

2. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal (AERAAT)
3. Appellate Tribunal Benami Transactions (ATBT)
4. Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL)
5. Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE)
6. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (NDPS Act) (ATFP-NDPS)
7. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (SAFEMA Act) (ATFP-SAFEMA)
8. Appellate Tribunal for Prevention of Money Laundering (ATFP-ATPML)
9. Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)
10. Authority for Advance Rulings (Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax) (AAR-CCS)
11. Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) (AAR-IT)
12. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT)
13. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
14. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
15. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority (CSTAA)
16. Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT)
17. Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CyAT)
18. Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)
19. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT)
20. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (EPFAT)
21. Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT)
22. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
23. Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)
24. Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal- II (KWDT-II)

73
This list consists of 37 tribunals, as they existed prior to the Finance Act, 2017, which is currently under
judicial review by the Supreme Court.
 Problems with Tribunals 13

25. Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal (MWDT)

26. National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
27. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)
28. National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
29. National Green Tribunal (NGT)
30. National Highways Tribunal (NHT)
31. Railways Claims Tribunal (RCT)
32. Railways Rates Tribunal (RRT)
33. Ravi & Beas Water Disputes Tribunal (RBWDT)
34. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT)
35. Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT)
36. Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)
37. Vasandhara Water Disputes Tribunal (VWDT)

A. Lack of Independence with Tribunals

The principle of judicial independence traces its origins from the doctrine of separation of powers.74
Often, ministries are parties before the very tribunals whose staff, finances, and administration they
handle. This is further problematised by a revolving door between ministry bureaucracy and tribunal
posts. Therefore, it is crucial to assess tribunal independence based on the following parameters: (a)
Appointment of members; (b) Removal of members; (c) Reappointments; (d) Nodal ministry; (e)
Proclivity to appoint judges/bureaucrats.

a) Appointment

While tribunal chairpersons are appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India, members are
typically recommended by a selection committee. NCLT Case observed that selection committees are
often not independent, since secretaries of the sponsoring department are a part of them.75
Moreover, several department bureaucrats are appointed as tribunal members, continuing their lien
with the parent cadre.76 Since departments also fund and assist with the day to day administration
of these tribunals, it creates a clear conflict of interest when decisions by these departments are
challenged in the tribunals they administer.77 In order to ensure independence, the say of the
executive needs to be reduced. Otherwise members may become biased in order to ensure re-
appointment and would be less inclined to take bold decisions. NCLT Case also held that selection
committees should have an equal number of judicial and executive members, with the casting vote
reserved for the senior-most judicial member.78 Of 37 tribunals analysed (excluding the five inter-

74
The principle of separation of powers was held to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution in His
Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCR 225; NCLT Case, at para 17
75
NCLT Case, at para 23
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.
 Problems with Tribunals 14

state water dispute tribunals), 18 tribunals have selection committees, while 14 do not. Amongst the
18 tribunals, three do not have any judicial members in their selection committees. 13 tribunals have
selection committees where executive members are more than judicial members. The CAT and AFT
are the only tribunals that have an equal number of judicial and executive members. The variance
in compositions have been illustrated in Figure 1.

Composition of Selection Committee

14 13

12

10

4 3
2
2

0
No judicial members Majority executive members Equal proportion of judicial and
executive members

Composition of Selection Committee

Figure 1: Composition of Selection Committee

b) Removal of Members

Removal procedure of members have a direct bearing on the independence of tribunals. Since the
procedure for removal of members lies with the executive, there exists a possibility of influencing
the decisions passed by the tribunals. While judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts need to be
impeached (which requires an absolute majority in each house of Parliament), no such safeguard
exists for tribunal members. This is despite certain tribunals supplanting the role of High Courts. In
this regard, both the grounds and manner of removal are equally important.79 The 74th Parliamentary
Standing Committee recommended that there must be uniformity not only in the grounds of removal
but also in the procedure of removal.80

This is not the case with the current system. For instance, some statutes do not have any provision
on removal itself, such as the ATFP-SAFEMA, AAR-CCS, AAR-IT, CESTAT and ITAT. Not having any
procedure or grounds for removal paves the way for arbitrariness. Judicial inquiry before removal

79
The grounds of removal are fairly consistent across tribunals. These are: insolvency; committing an offence
of moral turpitude; becoming mentally or physically incapable; acquiring financial or other interest that is likely
to prejudicially affect the member’s functions; and abusing his position so as to render his continuance in office
prejudicial to public interest. Some tribunals prescribe only “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” as the ground
for removal.
80
Parliamentary Standing Committee, 74th Report, at para 30
 Problems with Tribunals 15

ensures that members are not removed arbitrarily by the executive in case of unfavourable decisions
passed by them. However, the requirement for judicial inquiry is not present uniformly across
tribunals. While some provide for a consultation with the Chief Justice of India followed by an inquiry
by a Supreme Court judge nominated by him/her,81 others such as the FCAT have a procedure where
a member maybe removed after a consultation/on the recommendation of the Chairperson.82 For
some tribunals, such as the AERAAT and TDSAT, procedure of inquiry is only required for some grounds
and not all. In other cases an inquiry is discretionary and not mandatory. For example, in AFT and
CAT, when there is a complaint pertaining to a member, the central government sets up a committee
comprising senior bureaucrats, which undertakes a preliminary scrutiny of the complaint. Thereafter,
the committee submits its findings to the President, who may make a reference to the CJI based on
whether she/he believes that there are reasonable grounds for an inquiry. Therefore, there is scope
for executive discretion on whether inquiry can be conducted or not.

In Figure 2, the inquiry requirements are highlighted. Out of the 37 tribunals analysed, 10 tribunals
do not have mandatory inquiry requirement.

INQUIRY REQUIREMENTS
Mandatory Inquiry (All Grounds) Mandatory Inquiry (Specified Grounds) No Inquiry

No Inquiry Mandatory Inquiry

37% (All Grounds)
52%

Mandatory Inquiry
(Specified
Grounds)
11%

Figure 2: Inquiry requirements for central tribunals

c) Reappointment

Statutory provisions on reappointment are generally framed in three ways: (i) reappointment is
specifically barred; (ii) reappointment is specifically provided for; (iii) no provision on
reappointment. Out of the 37 tribunals analysed, only five tribunals have expressly barred

81
Some examples are: National Green Tribunal (Section 10(1)& 10(2) of the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010;
National Company Law Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal (Section 419(1)& 419(2) of the Companies Act, 2013);
Appellate Tribunal for Benami Transactions (Section 35(1) & 35(2) of the Benami Transactions Prohibition
(Amendment) Act, 2016); Prevention of Money Laundering Appellate Tribunal. (Section 32, The Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002).
82
Such a procedure is prescribed for the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (Rule 43(8), Cinematographer
(Certification) Rules, 1983).
 Problems with Tribunals 16

reappointment. However, 15 tribunals contain no provision on reappointment. Arguably, this creates

a situation of ambiguity where reappointment of members is potentially possible. This information is
graphically represented in Figure 3.

PROVISIONS OF REAPPOINTMENT
Reappointment (Expressly Barred) Reappointment (Expressly Allowed)
No provision on Reappointment
Reappointment
(Expressly Barred)
17%

No provision on
Reappointment
50%

Reappointment
(Expressly
Allowed)
33%

Figure 3: Provisions on reappointment

d) Nodal Ministry

Tribunals are entirely dependent on their nodal ministries for their day to day functioning. These
ministries can compromise the functioning of the tribunal by providing inadequate resources with the
aim of arm-twisting the tribunal into passing favourable orders or not able to function at all. For
example, the apathy of central government in filling up the vacancies in the NGT has compromised
the functioning of the tribunal severely. Since 2017, the lack of adequate judicial and expert
members in the principal and zonal benches of the NGT has either resulted in those benches being
shut down, or has rendered them incapable of passing decisions.83 This is in the backdrop of numerous
pending litigations relating to environmental clearances provided by the ministry for big investment
projects like dams, power plants, mining etc.84 The incapability of the tribunal to functional properly
or pass decisions on matters that challenge the policies of the ministry, thus, remains heavily reliant
on the ministry that sponsors it, and has a direct bearing on the independence of a tribunal.

83
Geetanjoy Sahu, “Ecocide by Design? Under Modi, Vacancies At National Green Tribunal Reach 70%”, The
Wire, 15th February, 2018, available at: https://thewire.in/politics/ngt-political-apathy-vacancies (last
accessed on 21st April, 2018)
84
Ibid.
 Problems with Tribunals 17

Table 1 depicts the central tribunals administered by different ministries:

Nodal Ministry Tribunals

Ministry of Civil Aviation AAT, AERAT

Ministry of Finance ATBT, ATFE, ATFP-PMLA, ATFP-SAFEMA, AAR-

CCS, AAR-IT, CSTAA, CESTAT, DRT, DRAT, SAT
Ministry of Power APTEL
Ministry of Defence AFT
Ministry of Water Resources CWDT, KWDT-II, MWDT, RBWDT, VWDT
Ministry of Corporate Affairs COMPAT, NCLT, NCLAT,
Ministry of Electronics and Information CyAT
Technology
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and CAT
Pensions
Ministry of Labour and Employment EPFAT
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting FCAT
Ministry of Law and Justice ITAT
Ministry of Commerce IPAB
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public NCDRC
Distribution
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate NGT
Change
Ministry of Road Transport NHT
Ministry of Railways RRT, RCT
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs REAT
Ministry of Communication TDSAT

Table 1: Tribunals under respective nodal ministries

e) Proclivity to Appoint Retired Judges and Bureaucrats

A particularly worrying trend noticed in the staffing of tribunals is the proclivity of the central
government to select retired judges and bureaucrats to head these institutions. Such a trend has
been criticised since it is seen as having the potential to compromise the independence of the
judiciary.85 Dangling post-retirement benefits for judges in the form of lucrative job opportunities in

85
Avijit Chatterjee, ‘Stormy Sinecures’ 24th November, 2014, The Telegraph, available at
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1140924/jsp/opinion/story_18866574.jsp (last accessed on 14th February,
2018); Apoorva Mandhani, ‘CJI Dattu may be offered the post of NHRC Chairperson; Ms. Indira Jaisingh says
independence of judiciary undermined by post retirement benefits’, 27th November, 2015 Livelaw, available at
 Problems with Tribunals 18

tribunals raises questions regarding the impartiality of the judges. This is because such post
retirement options act as ‘perverse incentives’ to toe the executive line when deciding high stake
cases against the government.86 In addition they cast doubt on the institutional integrity of the
tribunals to which such judges are appointed.

B. Administrative Concerns: Non-Uniformity in Regulation

Three kinds of concerns fall under the ambit of administration: (a) Discrepancies in qualifications,
tenure and age of retirement; and (b) Nodal Ministries.

a) Qualifications, Tenure and Age of Retirement

(a) Qualifications
Different qualification requirements lead to varying competencies, maturity and status of members,
which is problematic since tribunals often operate in place of High Courts. The most common
qualifications for judicial members in different tribunals are: (i) a retired or serving judge of the
Supreme Court, Chief Justice of a High Court; or (ii) a person who is or has been a High Court judge
or having the qualifications to be a judge of the High Court; or (iii) a person who is or has been or is
qualified to be a District Judge; (iv) a member of the Indian Legal Services (Grade I or Grade II); or
(v) a person at the secretary level (Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary) in any ministry or
department of the central government. Variance of qualification and experience also exists amongst
technical/expert members.87

(b) Tenure
Short tenure of 3-5 years precludes the cultivation of domain expertise, which can impact the efficacy
of tribunals. This was highlighted both in the NCLT Case88 and the 74th Parliamentary Standing
Committee report.89 The former recommended a 5-7 year tenure, while the latter suggested regular
system of appointment (where the tenure terminates at the age of retirement).90 The following
tribunals provide for a 3 year tenure and therefore do not follow the Supreme Court recommendation:
AAT, AERAAT, APTEL, ATFP-SAFEMA, AAR-CCS, AAR-IT, CESTAT, FCAT and TDSAT.

(c) Age of retirement

Retirement age hover between 62-70 years for Chairpersons and 62-65 years for other members (and
is 60 years for members from the bureaucracy), resulting in uneven tenures in benches. Such uneven

http://www.livelaw.in/cji-dattu-may-be-offered-the-post-of-nhrc-chairperson-ms-indira-jaising-
saysindependence-of-judiciary-undermined-by-post-retirement-benefits/ (last accessed on 14th February, 2018)
86
Madhav S. Aney, Shubhankar Dam & Giovanni Ko, ‘Jobs for Justice(s): Corruption in the Supreme Court of
India’ available at https://www.isid.ac.in/~epu/acegd2016/papers/MadhavSAney.pdf (last accessed on 14th
February, 2018)
87
Section 53D, The Competition Act, 2002
88
NCLT Case, at para 55
89
Parliamentary Standing Committee, 74th Report, at para 19
90
Ibid.
 Problems with Tribunals 19

tenures also hamper the lack of institutional continuity. Uniformity on this count has been
recommended by the Law Commission’s 232nd Report, which suggested 70 years and 65 years for
Chairpersons and other members respectively.91 The 74th Parliamentary Standing Committee report
suggested that the age of retirement should be uniform across the same post (i.e. Chairperson, Vice-
Chairperson, members) rather than differ on the basis of the source of appointment (i.e. whether
appointee is a retired High Court judge, Supreme Court judge, district judge etc.), since the latter
would amount to treating the same class of persons differently.92 The 272nd Law Commission Report
recommended 70 years for judicial members and 67 years for other members.93

b) Nodal Ministry

There is a degree of variance in the appointment process, qualification of members, age of

retirement, resources and infrastructure of different tribunals. L. Chandra Kumar94 criticised these
inconsistencies that occur due to tribunals operating under different ministries stating that there
needs to be a single nodal authority or ministry for the administration of tribunals in order to improve
efficiency. Annexure-C (Subject Matter and Jurisdiction of Tribunals) illustrates this lack of
consistency and how tribunals that cover similar subject-matter operate under different ministries.
For instance, the ITAT operates under the Department of Legal Affairs (under the Ministry of Law and
Justice), while other tax tribunals such as the AARs and CESTAT operate under the Ministry of Finance.

C. Pendency and Vacancy in Tribunals

a) Pendency

The 272nd Law Commission Report highlighted worrying pendency figures for the CAT (44,333 cases),
CESTAT (90,592 cases), ITAT (90,538 cases)95 and the AFT (10,222 cases).96 The high pendency figures
exist despite a high disposal rate.97 These figures are often high due to systemic issues. For instance,
it was observed that the DRT had 58% failed hearings (avoidable adjournments that are not
penalised)98 and condonations were often given on account of filing delays and absenteeism.99 This
accounted for over half the time taken by cases.100 Another significant cause behind delays is

91
Law Commission of India, 232nd report, at para 2.1
92
Parliamentary Standing Committee, 74th Report, at para 17
93
Law Commission of India, 272nd Report, Recommendation G
94
L. Chandra Kumar, at para 97
95
Law Commission of India, 272nd Report at para 3.35
96
Justice Rajesh Bindal, National Judicial Academy, “Tribunalisation of Justice in India: Boon or Bane?”,
available at: http://nja.nic.in/Concluded_Programmes/2017-18/P-
1048_PPTs/4.Tribunalisation%20of%20Justice%20In%20India.pdf (last accessed on 3rd March, 2018)
97
Law Commission of India, 272nd Report, at p. 33. The figure of 94% disposal rate is quoted without any mention
for which tribunal it applies to
98
Prasanth V Regy and Shubho Roy, “Understanding Judicial Delays in Debt Tribunals”, NIPFP Working Paper
Series No. 159, May, 2017, available at:
http://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2017/05/WP_2017_195.pdf (last accessed on 20th April, 2018),
at p.15
99
Ibid. at p.18
100
Ibid.
 Problems with Tribunals 20

absenteeism by tribunal members.101 Presiding Officers themselves were overworked and since there
is generally no extra capacity available, it results in delay, as was observed in the CAT.102

b) Vacancy

The problem of vacancies with regard to the judiciary in India is neither new nor exclusive to the
courts. Tribunals in particular, also suffer from the same problems of shortage of personnel. The 74th
Parliamentary Standing Committee Report highlighted its concern over vacancy being a cause of the
dysfunctional nature of tribunals. The report analysed a list of 13 tribunals wherein out of a
sanctioned strength of 352 posts across these tribunals, 138 posts were lying vacant as of 31st
December, 2014. More recently, vacancies in tribunals have come to the forefront of public discourse
with the Supreme Court demanding an explanation for vacancies in the APTEL.103 Senior advocate
Mukul Rohtagi demanded the scrapping of the NGT for lack of judicial members to hear cases.104 The
latest figures on the vacancies at the NGT is already pegged at 70%. The last time vacancy figures
were compiled and made available publicly was when the 74th Parliamentary Standing Committee
Report was released in 2015.105 However, such figures were compiled for only thirteen tribunals.
There is therefore an urgent need to make a comprehensive compilation of the total number of
vacancies for all central tribunals listed above.

D. Jurisdiction of the High Courts

The constitutionality of setting up tribunals has always revolved around the question of establishing
them, without affecting the inherent powers of the constitutional courts, i.e. the High Courts and
the Supreme Court. Provisions allowing for direct appeals to the Supreme Court thereby by-passing
the jurisdiction of the High Court have been scrutinized by the judiciary in multiple cases. The
decision of the seven-judge bench in L. Chandra Kumar comprehensively lays down the law in this
regard.

While dealing with the constitutionality of exclusion of jurisdiction of High Courts in service matters
against the orders of the CAT, the court highlighted two primary issues with statutory appeals directly
to the Supreme Court. Firstly, a direct appeal to the Supreme Court was too costly and inaccessible
for litigants; and secondly, such a provision of appeal would lead to congestion of the docket of the

101
Varun Chirumamilla, “The Aches and Pains of India's Armed Forces Tribunals” Bar and Bench 17th November,
2017 available at https://barandbench.com/armed-forces-tribunals/, (last accessed on 15th February, 2018)
102
Amita Shah, “The Other Story of Justice Delayed” Open Magazine, 17th November, 2017, available at
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/law/the-other-story-of-justice-delayed, (last accessed on 15th
February, 2018)
103
Press Trust of India, “Govt. Creating Problems By Not Filing Vacancies in APTEL: Supreme Court”, Livemint,
June 28th, 2017, available at https://www.livemint.com/Politics/Mu76wqxMumBOni5XszUIcJ/Govt-creating-
problems-by-not-filing-vacancies-in-Aptel-Sup.html (last accessed on 18th April, 2018)
104
Press Trust of India, “No Single Judge Bench Can Hear Cases At NGT: Supreme Court” The Indian Express,
January 31, 2018 http://indianexpress.com/article/india/no-single-judge-bench-can-hear-cases-at-ngt-
supreme-court-5046408/ (last accessed on 18th April, 2018)
105
Parliamentary Standing Committee, 74th Report, Annexure III
 Problems with Tribunals 21

Supreme Court.106 To remedy this problem, the court stated that from all the decisions of the
tribunals, an aggrieved party should be allowed to move to the High Court under Articles 226/227,
before a division bench. It also stated that no appeal from a decision of tribunal would lie before the
Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.107 More recently, in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam
Ltd. v Essar Power Limited,108 (“Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Case”), the Supreme Court stated that
direct appeals to it from tribunals resulted in denial of access to the High Courts thereby becoming
a substitute for them.109

The Law Commission of India has also deliberated on the issue of direct appeals to the Supreme Court
and recommended that an appeal from the decision of tribunals, should necessarily lie before a
division bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal is located.110 Despite the
existing precedent and Law Commission of India recommendations, there exist tribunals which allow
for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court in their parent statutes. These are: NGT, SAT, NCDRC,
AFT111, APTEL, COMPAT, AERAAT, TDSAT, NCLAT and CAT.

Problems pertaining to the lack of independence, ad-hoc regulation and by passing the jurisdiction
of High Courts have been the major criticisms against the tribunal system in India. Therefore, any
attempts at reform must adequately address these issues. The next chapters, explore the possible
ways to reform the tribunals system in India.

106
L. Chandra Kumar, at para 92
107
Ibid. at paras 92, 93 & 94
108
(2016) 9 SCC 103
109
Ibid. at paras 33 & 44
110
Please see: Law Commission of India, 162nd Report, 1998, available at:
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/Report162.pdf (last accessed 9th November, 2017), Conclusion,
7.2 (c); Also see: Law Commission of India, 272nd Report, at paras 8.21, 8.22 & 8.23, Recommendation-H
111
The provision regarding direct appeal to the Supreme Court from AFT (Section 30), was challenged in the
Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v Shri Kant Sharma (AIR 2015 SC 2465). The Court stated that
High Courts should refrain from exercising their writ jurisdiction in this case, as a statutory appeal to the directly
Supreme Court exists as an ‘alternate remedy’.
 Rationalisation of Tribunals 22

4. RATIONALISATION OF TRIBUNALS

Through the course of previous chapters, this interim report establishes that India’s tribunals
framework is inadequate in supplementing the judiciary, due to multiple concerns. Problems such as
lack of independence and incoherent administration require a constructive and holistic response that
reimagines this framework. This chapter and the next attempt to provide a preliminary response to
these issues. It is vital to note that chapters 4 and 5 attempt to offer such an alternative disregarding
the piecemeal changes introduced by the Finance Act, 2017. The methodology and rationale for
merger carried out by the Finance Act, 2017 have been criticised for compromising the independence
of 19 tribunals (discussed previously under The Finance Act, 2017 and Rules). Therefore, this interim
report has not relied on those changes.

A. Tribunals Framework in the United Kingdom

In order to offer an alternative, this interim report relies on the methodology of merger adopted by
the United Kingdom since it also suffered from similar issues of tribunalisation in its justice system.
Annexure-D (Tribunals in Foreign Jurisdictions) briefly outlines the evolution of the United Kingdom’s
tribunals framework, culminating with the Tribunals for Users- One System, One Service : Report of
the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt (“Leggatt Report”). The Leggatt Report heralded a
new era for tribunals in the United Kingdom, starting with the enactment of the Tribunals, Courts
and Enforcement Act, 2007. The merger of tribunals has since been employed by Australia to remedy
the problems of their tribunals framework as well.

India and the United Kingdom have similar administrative frameworks and issues faced by tribunals,
in terms of constitutionality and operation. This has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in the
NCLT Case112 and NTT Case.113 The bench in NCLT Case drew specific recommendations from the
Leggatt Report, noting that the United Kingdom also had too many tribunals, some of which were
defunct, and that the problems this created were similar to the problems faced in India. In addition
to the similarity in systemic issues, the Court agreed with the recommendations offered by the
Leggatt Report, which was to have a single tribunals service and nodal agency, in order to bolster
independence and streamline operation. The 74th Parliamentary Standing Committee Report in 2015
examined the Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and Other Authorities (Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014.
The Report recommended that, in order to ensure uniformity in all the affairs of the tribunals, the
central government may consider bestowing the function of monitoring tribunals to a single nodal
agency, under the Ministry of Law and Justice. While criticising the bill for being “half-baked”114 the
Report stated that tribunals must have synonymous service conditions and a coherent classification

112
NCLT Case, at para 19
113
NTT Case, at para 70
114
Parliamentary Standing Committee, 74th Report, at para 4
 Rationalisation of Tribunals 23

based on “intelligible differentia.”115 This opinion has since been endorsed by the Law Commission
of India in its 272nd Report in 2017. Notably, besides Indian judgements and reports, this Report
referred to the Leggatt Report recommendations and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act,
2007. The important takeaways from this analysis are as follows:

1. There is a constitutional and operational similarity between the tribunals frameworks of the
United Kingdom and India, making the United Kingdom reforms a relevant blueprint.
2. Rationalising the framework must involve two important features:
a. Operational coherence by merging tribunals on the basis of subject matter.
b. Oversight by a single, independent, statutory body.
3. Ensuring operational coherence and uniform oversight has a positive impact on judicial
independence and the separation of powers.

B. Rationalising Tribunals

In order to introduce uniformity and coherence, this interim report proposes the merger of central
tribunals on the basis of subject-matter, similar to the Leggatt Report recommendations. Since
tribunals are court equivalents, created to channel domain expertise, this interim report has
identified domain/subject-matter and jurisdiction as the appropriate rationale for merging tribunals,
identical to the approach in United Kingdom. Tribunals have been merged into a single subject-matter
division with separate benches for original and appellate jurisdictions.

In rationalising the tribunals framework, the following subject-matters emerge: (a) Tax; (b)
Environment; (c) Services; (d) Public Utilities & Infrastructure; (e) Licensing; (f) Finance (Bank); (g)
Finance (Company); (h) Finance (Property); (i) Inter-State Water Dispute. The Finance division have
been sub-divided into Finance (Company), Finance (Bank) and Finance (Property) as the nature of
disputes differ across these subject-matters.

The tribunals have been rationalised with the current framework in mind, leading to a total of nine
subject-matter divisions. Within these divisions, separate benches can be constituted for different
statutes, keeping in mind original or appellate jurisdiction. In certain cases, before an adjudication
by tribunals, there is an inquiry/investigation by a regulator or an officer, whereas in other cases,
the Board or Tribunal acts as a forum of first instance and there is no prior inquiry/ investigation by
any authority. A combination of these factors contribute to administrative, resource and operational
inefficiency.

A tribunal that exercises appellate jurisdiction hears matters after a quasi-judicial authority has
already addressed questions of fact and law. For example, an appeal from Commissioner (Appeals)

115
Ibid. at paras 21-24
 Rationalisation of Tribunals 24

or Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) will lie to the ITAT and further to the High Court (as per the Income
Tax Act, 1961).

In the proposed model, this nature of original or appellate jurisdiction under a tribunal’s statutory
framework has been preserved. For example, the Tax division can have five types of benches, two
exercising original jurisdiction, substituting the AAR-CS and AAR-IT, and three that exercise appellate
jurisdiction, substituting the ITAT, CSTAA, and CESTAT. The benefit of such a model is that depending
on the subject-matter and the nature of cases being filed, judicial and
technical/administrative/expert members can be transferred across verticals within each subject
matter division after authorisation. With a dedicated tribunals service and examination (explained in
the next chapter), augmented with training support, a more dynamic tribunals framework that
addresses the present deficiencies can be developed. This flexibility can address the volume of cases
at any given time more realistically.

RATIONALSATION OF TRIBUNALS
SR.
NO. DIVISION ORIGINAL JURISDICTION116 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1 Environment NGT NGT

2 Licensing IPAB, FCAT -
3 Tax AAR-CCS, AAR-IT ITAT, CSTAA, CESTAT

4 Finance (Bank) DRT DRAT

5 Finance (Company) NCLT NCLAT, COMPAT117
6 Finance (Property) - ATFP, ATBT

7 Services AFT, CAT AFT, EPFAT

8 Public Utilities and TDSAT, AERAAT, RCT, TDSAT, AERAAT, NCDRC,
Infrastructure AAT, RRT NHT, REAT, SAT, APTEL,
ATFE, CyAT
9 CWDT,KWDT-II,
-
Inter-State Water Dispute118 MWDT,RBWDT,VWDT

Table 2: Rationalisation of Tribunals

Therefore, this framework envisages two sets of benches under each subject-matter division. The
following figure illustrates Public Utilities and Infrastructure as an example of these two sets. In the

116
This categorisation corresponds to each tribunals’ individual jurisdiction under their respective statutes, and
not that appeals from the first category (original) would go to the second (appellate). For example, Table No. 2
does not suggest that an appeal from AAR-IT lies with ITAT, but that AAR-IT exercises original jurisdiction over
its subject-matter and ITAT exercises appellate jurisdiction over its subject-matter.
117
COMPAT can be merged with NCLAT as recommended under the Finance Act 2017.
118
A single tribunal with multiple benches can be constituted to hear and resolve the inter-state water disputes.
A similar framework has been put in place via the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2017.
 Rationalisation of Tribunals 25

case of disputes relating to the highways, the NHT exercises original jurisdiction over matters against
the orders of Highway Administrator (Regulator). This will be followed by an appeal to the High Court.
Disputes against orders of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (Regulator) will lie before
AERAAT under original jurisdiction. Appeals against these orders will be heard by appellate bench of
the AEERAT under its appellate jurisdiction, following which an appeal will lie with the High Court.

High Court

AERAAT (Appellate Jurisdiction)

NHT (Original Jurisdiction) AERAAT (Original Jurisdiction)

Highway Administrator Airports Economic Regulatory

(Regulator) Authority (Regulator)

Figure 4: Model for a Tribunals Framework

C. Characteristics of the Model

Based on the proposed model, tribunals can fall under either of the above sets depending on the
statutory conditions. In the first set, a dispute moves from a regulator (that performs a quasi-judicial
function), whose order can then be challenged by the first-tier tribunal that has original jurisdiction.
For instance, the FCAT would have original jurisdiction against the orders of the regulator (Central
Board of Film Certification). The second category has a regulator performing adjudicatory functions.
For instance, the Commissioner of Revenue and Assistant Appellate Commissioner exercise
adjudicatory powers, according to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appeals against them are entertained
by the ITAT, making its jurisdiction appellate and not original. This breakup creates a set of
parameters that comply with the individual statutes that govern tribunals. Tribunal officers can be
allocated to benches to deal with cases in a manner that allows for flexibility, without compromising
on competence. Each subject-matter division can have common buildings, registries, support staff,
etc., which is likely to both streamline and diminish operational costs. Furthermore, common
selection processes can be developed that can be made rigorous. This can be complemented with
training modules and programmes that build a judicial or expert members’ expertise across statues.

Such a model creates uniformity and coherence that enhances the operation of tribunals. It creates
an ease of process, efficient use of funds, flexibility to respond to needs, and better case-flow
management. The next step of such a model is to ensure judicial independence. Chapter 5 proposes
 Rationalisation of Tribunals 26

such a model for a National Tribunals Commission as an independent statutory entity, meant to secure
judicial independence, while offering uniformity in service conditions for members of tribunals.
 National Tribunals Commission 27

5. NATIONAL TRIBUNALS COMMISSION

The previous chapters have traced the history and evolution of tribunals, highlighting the important
precedents of the Supreme Court that operate in this domain. An attempt has been made to critically
understand and analyse the problems that exist in the tribunals framework and suggests a
rationalisation of this framework through mergers.

The scheme of this chapter is divided into two parts:

1. The first part of the chapter introduces a blueprint for an independent and statutory body, named
the National Tribunals Commission, which will be in charge of overseeing the administration of
tribunals.
2. The second part of the chapter focuses on tribunals specific changes. It tries to remedy the
defects which lead to issues of independence and functioning. These include enumerating the
appointment process, the eligibility criteria/qualifications, the service conditions and removal
procedure for members.

A. Envisaging a National Tribunals Commission

Recognizing the already existing and much desirable need for a single agency to administer the
functioning of tribunals, this interim report proposes to set up an independent statutory body called
the National Tribunals Commission (NTC). Such a body established through a law of Parliament, would
ensure the prioritisation of tribunals and also independence from the executive. Figure 5 visually
depicts how the NTC will be structured.

National Tribunals Commission

Board of the NTC

Two sitting judges of Three sitting judges of Three executive
One senior advocate
the SC the HC members

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Figure 5: Organisational structure of the NTC

 National Tribunals Commission 28

The following section tries to flesh out the different aspects of the NTC:

a) Board of the NTC

The NTC will work through its Board, the composition of which should be provided in the statute
establishing it. As it is essential for the NTC to be independent, a total of 9 members have been
considered, comprising a diverse mix of all the stakeholders:

● Two sitting judges of the Supreme Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
● Three sitting judges of the High Court to be nominated by the Collegium.
● Three executive members to be nominated by the Central Government (the minimum level
required would be that of a Secretary in the Government).
● One senior advocate to be nominated by the Bar Council of India (BCI) (preferable senior
advocates having a reputed standing in the profession and 20 years or more of standing
practice)

From amongst the members of the Board, the senior-most judge nominated from the Supreme Court
should be designated as the Chairperson of the Board of NTC.

b) Scope and Powers of the NTC

i. Scope

The NTC will be responsible for supervising and administering all tribunals established under any Act
of Parliament and not tribunals established pursuant to state legislations.

ii. Powers

NTC will establish a Secretariat for its administration and functioning. The NTC may also be
empowered to establish different sub-committees, which would be entrusted to administer the
tribunals under its scope.

Furthermore, the NTC should be empowered to set up and ideate any new tribunals in consultation
with the central government and through Parliamentary approval. A possible mechanism for the same
is as follows:

• The central government makes a proposal for the establishment of a potential tribunal
and submits it to the NTC for approval.
• The proposal of the central government lists the reasons for establishing a new tribunal
along with details about the subject matter, jurisdiction, infrastructure as well as
budgetary requirements of the tribunal.
 National Tribunals Commission 29

• Post the submission of the proposal, the NTC will evaluate the proposal and put its report
before the Parliament for a final decision. The proceedings of the NTC shall be made
available for public scrutiny for transparency purposes.

c) Chief Executive Officer

Considering that Board members have judicial, administrative, and professional functions outside of
the NTC, it is important to have a CEO to implement their decisions and directions. The CEO’s role
would be to manage and execute the functions of the NTC and to operationalise its mandate. The
eligibility requirements as well as the selection process for the CEO of the NTC shall be decided by
the Board of the NTC.

d) Tenure of the Board Members

The tenure of the members of the Board should be for three years, with no provision for
reappointment. Every three years, the appointing bodies i.e. the judiciary,119 the central
government120 and the BCI shall nominate new members to be a part of the Board. Furthermore, the
senior advocate nominated by the BCI should not be allowed to practice in front of any central
tribunal, while they are a serving member of the Board.

B. Remedying the Issues with Tribunals

In order to remedy the defects that exist with the tribunals framework, this interim report relies on
the constitutional standards laid down by the Supreme Court in regard to tribunals. However,
wherever there has been a scope on improving on the standards set down by the Court, this part of
the chapter has also tried to explore those options. The following are the recommendations made:

a) Process of Appointment

At present, most central tribunals employ a method of appointment based on selection committees.
As has been highlighted [discussed previously in Lack of Independence with Tribunals (Appointment)],
the composition of selection committee has been a matter of much judicial scrutiny, as the
appointment process of members for a tribunal has a direct nexus with the independence of tribunals.
Also, there exist some tribunals where the appointment is done by the central government in
consultation with the Chief Justice of India specifically for the posts of Chairperson/President of the
tribunals. However, in an attempt to ensure the independence of tribunals in regard to appointment
process, the following modes of appointments can be explored for both judicial and expert members:

119
It needs to be kept in mind that the Judiciary needs to be appoint judges who have at least three years of
service left as a sitting judge of the Supreme Court/High Court.
120
The central government shall only nominate those people who have at least three years of service left as a
Secretary to the government.
 National Tribunals Commission 30

(i) Option 1: Open Advertisement

In an Open Advertisement Model, a sub-committee for appointment of members can call for
applications through public advertisements. It is important to mention here that the sub-committee
should comprise an equal number of judicial and executive members. Following the application
procedure, a list of candidates shall be made by the sub-committee based on the eligibility
criteria/qualifications required for the particular post in a tribunal. The short-listed candidates may
further undergo an interview phase, following which the sub-committee will prepare a final list of
candidates and forward it to the Board. The approval for the candidates should be based on majority
opinion of the Board, following which the central government shall make the final appointments.

In the option explored above, the final list of candidates forwarded to the central government by the
NTC for appointment, shall be binding on them. Additionally, the sub-committee on appointments
may also keep a reserve pool of candidates who can be utilized to fill vacancies in the tribunals as
and when it arises. Such a list of candidates may exist for a period of one year, following which fresh
appointment procedure needs to be carried out.

(ii) Option 2: All India Entrance Examination for Tribunals (AIEET)

In order to attract experienced professionals and facilitate appropriate career progression in

tribunals, a regular system of appointment can be conceptualised through the creation of an Indian
Tribunals Service (ITS). An All India Entrance Examination for Tribunals (AIEET) can be conducted by
the NTC or the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for appointment to central tribunals. As the
case may be, the NTC/UPSC can be in-charge of determining the process including the number of
examinations, the syllabus etc. The profile of the candidates should be kept in mind while setting
the syllabus so as to cater to the specific needs of each subject matter division (discussed previously
under Rationalising Tribunals). Additionally, an age limit should be set as an eligibility criteria for
application process between 35 and 50 years of age. Further, for judicial members, at least 7 years
of standing practice as a lawyer; and for expert members, 10 years of work experience can be set as
minimum eligibility criteria for application process.

After clearing the examination, the list of candidates will be forwarded to the Board for approval.
After receiving approval, the successful candidates will be a part of the ITS. The NTC shall then
forward this list to the Central Government to be appointed.

b) Qualifications/Eligibility Criteria for Appointments to Tribunals

The NTC should be empowered to form a sub-committee which can be entrusted to set the eligibility
criteria for appointment of members to the tribunals. However, the following guidelines should be
kept in mind:

a) For the post of President/Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson and judicial members, the

qualifications should be uniform across all tribunals. In case ITS is established, the
 National Tribunals Commission 31

qualifications required for a person to be eligible for the post of District Judge should be
considered.
b) There should be a complete bar on retired judges being part of tribunals.
c) Persons who have been members of Indian Legal Service (Grade-I or II) or a person who is a
secretary in any ministry or department of central government should not be eligible for
appointment as judicial members for a tribunal.
d) Technical/expert members should be people of ability, integrity and have a formidable
standing in their profession. Their domain expertise should not be less than 10 years.

c) Reappointment

It is recommended that there should be a complete bar on reappointment [discussed previously in

Lack of Independence with Tribunals (Reappointment)].

d) Tenure of Members

Based on the recommendation of the Supreme Court, the tenure of all members of a tribunal should
at least be set at five years or seven years in case a tenure based system of appointment to tribunals
is in place.

However, if a regular system of appointment is put in place through the introduction of the AIEET,
the members of the tribunals will be serving till the age of the retirement which can be set at 65
years of age.

e) Post-tenure Restrictions

An important aspect that needs to be considered is the problem regarding ‘post-retirement’ benefits
that can be offered to tribunal members. Such a situation can influence the decision making of
tribunal members, where decisions can be passed in the favour of the executive, if they are promised
lucrative posts within the government after their tenure ends. The following provisions with respect
to cessation of tenure needs to be added to the parent statutes of all central tribunals:

• Former members shall be ineligible for further government employment.

• They should be ineligible to appear, act or plead before any tribunal. However, they can
practice before the High Courts and Supreme Court.

f) By-passing the Jurisdiction of High Courts

Based on the observation made by the Supreme Court (discussed previously under Jurisdiction of the
High Courts), the following is suggested:

● Direct appeal to the Supreme Court should not be permitted from any tribunal.
● The decision of a tribunal shall attain finality in all cases. However, in the event of substantial
questions of law, a statutory appeal can lie with the Division Bench of the territorial High
Court.
 National Tribunals Commission 32

g) Salaries and Other Allowances

For an effective administration of tribunals and their members, it is recommended that salaries and
other allowances should be made uniform across all tribunals.

h) Nodal Ministry

In order to remedy the problem of different nodal ministries administering tribunals, the
establishment of an independent statutory body such as the NTC should be sufficient.

i) Vacancy

The sub-committee on appointments of the NTC should be entrusted with the job of filling up
vacancies and should be mandated to carry out an assessment on the requirement of human resources
for all tribunals. Any vacancy in a tribunal should be filled up preferably within six months prior to
the occurrence of vacancy.

j) Removal of Members

The procedure for removal should be made uniform across all tribunals. Additionally, the following
suggestions in regard to the removal process should be considered:

• A three member sub-committee should be established by the NTC, which would be entrusted
with the responsibility of carrying out the removal procedure.
• The composition of this sub-committee shall be decided by the Board, based on majority.
• An inquiry needs to be carried out (preferably by a sitting Supreme Court/High Court judge)
nominated by the Chief Justice of India on a reference made by the NTC, in the allegations
made against the respective member. After the conclusion of inquiry, the concerned judge
should elaborate on its findings and record reasons for the recommendation made and submit
it to the sub-committee on removal.
• After the submission of the recommendation, the sub-committee shall forward it to the Board
for approval. The decision of the Board shall be final and should be forwarded to the central
government for implementation. However, for transparency purposes, the decision of the
sub-committee and the reasons recorded for the removal of the member shall be made
available for public scrutiny.
 Way Forward 33

6. WAY FORWARD

This interim report has attempted to trace the origins of tribunals, critically analyse precedent and
reports, and provided an exhaustive assessment of problems in India’s tribunals framework. After a
detailed diagnosis, this report floats a proposal for a new tribunals framework, which recommends a
systemic reform and the establishment for a NTC.

At this juncture, it is important to recognise that holistic reforms can only be conceived and
effectively implemented by engaging with all stakeholders. Therefore, moving forward, it is
important to conduct a roundtable seminar in order to engage with different perspectives on
enhancing this proposal. Such a consultation must involve members of the judiciary, executive,
tribunals, practising advocates, civil society, bureaucrats, etc. While this report tries to propose
several reforms, a public consultation must also yield pointed insights on issues that have not been
fully addressed in this draft report, such as:

1) Status of the NTC: The viability of constituting the NTC as an independent statutory authority
versus a body operating under a single nodal ministry (for instance, the Ministry of Law and
Justice).
2) Scope of the NTC: The possibility of extending the scope of the NTC to administer state
tribunals can be explored. Alternatively, the prospect of establishing state-wise independent
and statutory bodies can also be considered.
3) Tenure: The optimal tenure for NTC members, considering the fact that a three-year tenure
might reduce the pool of viable candidates from the bureaucracy.
4) BCI Nominee: The need for a lawyer member in the NTC and consequently a relook at the
appropriate cooling off period before such a member can resume practice in tribunals.
5) Career Progression: The prospect of developing an ITS, with provisions for transfers,
promotions, seniority, etc.
6) Tribunal Mergers: The need to reassess tribunal mergers based on empirical data on
vacancies, pendency, infrastructure and budgets, etc. procured from Ministries.
7) Finance Division: Exploring the possibility of a unified Finance subject matter division as
opposed to sub-dividing it as Bank, Company and Property.
 Annexures 34

Annexures

A NNE X URE -A : SE A RCH -C UM -SE LE CT IO N C OM M IT TE E CO M P OSI TI ONS (U NDE R FINA NCE A CT, 2 01 7)

The following table maps the composition of search-cum-selection committees (SSC) for various tribunals under the Finance Act, 2017. Only the CAT, NCLAT (with respect to Judicial/Technical
member), and AFT (with respect to Vice-Chairman/Judicial/Administrative member) follow the NCLT Case recommendations. The SSC composition for other tribunals are as follows:

TRIBUNAL SSC COMPOSITION

Industrial Tribunal Presiding Officer: 5-member SSC (no judicial member)

ITAT President and Vice-President: 3-member SSC (2 judicial members and 1 executive member)

Account Member and Judicial Member: 5-member SSC (including President of ITAT, as a judicial member)

CESTAT President: 4-member SSC (3 executive members)

Judicial Member: 6-member SSC (including 2 Supreme Court judges, President of CESTAT)

Technical Member: 4-member SSC (no judicial member)

ATFP-SAFEMA Chairman: 4-member SSC (3 executive members)

Member: no judicial members

CAT Administrative Member: 4-member SSC (2 executive members and 2 nominees of the central government)

RCT Chairman: 5-member SSC (2 judicial members, 1 executive member, 2 nominees of the central government)

Vice-chairman (Technical) or Member (Technical): 5-member SSC (1 judicial member, 3 nominees of the central government, and 1 executive member)

SAT No SSC for Presiding and Judicial Members.

Technical Member: 4-member SSC (3 executive members and 1 judicial member)

DRT Presiding Officer: 5-member SSC (1 judicial member, 3 executive members, and the RBI Governor/Deputy Governor)
 Annexures 35

DRAT Presiding Officer: 5-member SSC (1 judicial member, 3 executive members, and the RBI Governor/Deputy Governor)

TRIBUNAL SSC COMPOSITION

AAT Chairperson: 4-member SSC (2 executive members and 2 nominees of the central government)

TDSAT Chairperson: 5-member SSC (1 judicial member, 2 executive members, 2 experts nominated by the central government)

IPAB Chairman/Vice-Chairman/Judicial Member: 5-member SSC (1 judicial member, 2 executive members, 2 experts nominated by central government)

NCLAT No SSC. Chairperson appointed by central government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

AAR-IT Chairman/Vice-Chairman: 4-member SSC (1 judicial member and 3 executive members)

Member: Only executive members

FCAT Chairman and Member: 5-member SSC (3 nominees of the central government and 2 executive members)

NCDRC President: No SSC. Appointed by central government in consultation with Chief Justice of India.

Member: 5-member SSC (1 judicial member, 2 executive members, 2 experts nominated by central government)

APTEL Chairperson and Judicial Member: 5-member SSC (1 judicial member, 2 executive members, 2 experts nominated by central government)

Technical Member: 5-member SSC (no judicial members)

AFT No SSC. Chairperson appointed by central government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

NGT Chairperson/Judicial Member: 5-member SSC (1 judicial member, 2 executive members, 2 experts nominated by central government)

Technical Member: 5-member SSC (no judicial member)

 Annexures 36

A NNE X URE -B : S TA T UT O RY F RA ME W ORK O F CEN TRA L TR IB UNA LS

Appeals, Composition, Qualifications, and Appointment Processes

TRIBUNAL ACT AND RULES (NODAL APPEAL COMPOSITION QUALIFICATION APPOINTMENT PROCESSES
MINISTRY)
AAT The Airport Authority of No appeal Chairperson Chairperson: Chairperson: Appointed by the Central Government
India Act, 1994 (a) Is or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
High Court.
(Ministry of Civil Aviation)
AERAT The Airports Economic Supreme Chairperson and Chairperson Chairperson: Appointed by the Central Government in
Regulatory Authority of Court at least 2 (a) Is, or has been, a judge of the Supreme Court or consultation with the Chief Justice of India or his
India Act, 2008, members. the Chief Justice of a High Court nominee.
b) Airports Economic Member-
Regulatory Authority (a) Secretary, Government of India or any
Appellate Tribunal (Salaries equivalent post in Central government or State
and Allowances and Other government for a total period of not less than 2
Terms and Conditions of years in the Ministries or Departments dealing with
Service of the Chairperson aviation/economics/ law
and Other Members) Rules, or
2011 (b) A person who is well-versed in the field of
aviation or economics or law.
(Ministry of Civil Aviation)
 Annexures 37

ATBT The Benami Transactions High Court Chairperson and Chairperson- Method of appointment and authority not specified in
(Prohibition) Amendment at least 2 (a)Sitting or retired judge of the High Court or the act.
Act, 2016. members Supreme Court who has completed not less than
five years of service.
(Ministry of Finance) Judicial Member-
(a) Member of the Indian Legal Service and has held
the post of Additional Secretary or equivalent post
in that Service;
Administrative Member,
(a) Has been a Member of the Indian Revenue
Service at the post of Chief Commissioner of
Income tax or equivalent post in that Service.
 Annexures 38

APTEL The Electricity Act, 2003 Supreme Chairperson, 3 Chairperson: Chairperson: Appointed by the Central Government
Court members (a) Is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court or after Consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
(Ministry of Power) the Chief Justice of a High Court Members:
Members: The Members shall be appointed by the Central
(a) Is or has been or is qualified to be a Judge of Government on the recommendation of the Selection
the High Court Committee.
(b) Is, or has been, a Secretary for at least one year
in the Ministry or Department of the Central Composition of Selection Committee
Government dealing with economic affairs or (a) Member of the Planning Commission in charge of
matters or infrastructure the energy sector as Chairperson;
(c) Is, or has been, a person, having adequate (b)Secretary-in-charge of the Ministry of the Central
knowledge or experience in dealing with the Government dealing with the Department of the Legal
matters relating to electricity generation, Affairs
transmission and distribution and regulation or (c) Chairperson of the Public Enterprises Selection
economics, commerce, law or management. Board
(d) A person to be nominated by the Central
Government
(e) a person to be nominated by the Central
Government
(f) Secretary-in-charge of the Ministry of the Central
Government dealing with power
 Annexures 39

ATFE a)The Foreign Exchange High Court Chairperson and Chairperson: Chairperson and Members: Appointed by Central
Management Act, 1999; not exceeding 4 (a)Is or has been or is qualified to be a Judge of a Government on the recommendation of the Selection
b) Appellate Tribunal for members. High Court. Board.
Foreign Exchange Member
(Recruitment, Salary and (a) Is or has been or is qualified to be a District Composition of Selection Board - a) Supreme Court
Allowances and Other Judge Judge, nominated by the Minister of Law, Justice and
Conditions of Service of Company Affairs in consultation with the Chief Justice
Chairperson and Members) of India.
Rules, 2000. b) Secretary-in-charge of the Ministry of the Central
Government dealing with the Department of Legal
(Ministry of Finance) Affairs.
c) Secretary-in-charge of the Ministry of the Central
Government dealing with the Department of
Personnel and Training.
 Annexures 40

ATFP-PMLA The Prevention of Money High Court Chairperson and Chairperson- Chairperson: Chairperson to be appointed in
Laundering Act, 2002. 2 other (a) Shall be a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
members. High Court or is qualified for the same. Member- Selection of members shall be made on the
Prevention of Money Member- recommendation of a Selection Committee.
Laundering (Appointment (a) is or has been a judge of the High Court. Composition of Selection Committee:
and Conditions of Service of (b) Is or has been a member of Grade I of the Indian a) Revenue Secretary (Chairperson)
Chairperson and Members Legal Service for at least 3 years or b) Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs
of Appellate Tribunal) (c) Has been a member of the Indian Revenue c) Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General -of India,
Rules, 2007. Service as Commissioner of Income-tax or d)Central Board of Direct Taxes or Chairman, Central
equivalent post for at least 3 years. Board of Excise and Customs.
(Ministry of Finance) (d) Has been a member of the Indian Economic
Service as Joint Secretary or equivalent post for at The Selection Committee shall recommend persons
least 3 years; or from amongst the persons on the list of candidates
(e) Has been a member of the Indian Customs and prepared by the Ministry of Finance which shall invite
Central Excise Service as Joint Secretary or applications through advertisement.
equivalent post in that Service for at least 3 years;
or
(f) Has been in the practice of accountancy as a
chartered accountant as a registered accountant or
partly as a registered accountant and partly as a
chartered accountant for at least 10 years
(mandatory member) or
(g) Has been a member of the Indian Audit and
Accounts Service as a Joint Secretary or equivalent
post for at least 3 years.
 Annexures 41

ATFP- Smugglers and foreign No appeal Chairman and Chairman: Central Government shall appoint the members.
SAFEMA Exchange Manipulators such number of (a) Is or has been a Judge of the Supreme court or Method of appointment not specified.
(Forfeiture of Property other members of a High Court
Act), 1976 as the Central Members:
Government (a) Officers of the Central Government not being
Narcotic Drugs and thinks fit below the rank of Joint Secretary to the
Psychotropic Substances government.
Act, 1985;

Appellate Tribunal for

Forfeited Property
(Conditions of Service for
Chairman and Members)
Rules, 1978

(Ministry of Finance)
AFT Armed Forces Tribunal Act, Supreme Chairperson, Chairperson- Chairperson: Shall be appointed by the President
2007. Court Vice- a) Retired judge of Supreme Court or a retired after a consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
Chairperson and Chief Justice of a High Court Members: Shall be appointed by the President after a
Armed Forces Tribunal such number of Judicial Member- consultation with the Chief Justice. There shall be a
(Procedure For Judicial and a) He is or has been a Judge of High Court Selection Committee for the purpose of the selection
Appointment of Vice- Administrative Administrative Member of the Vice-Chairperson and Members
Chairperson and Other Members as the a) Has held or has been holding the rank of Major
Members) Rules, 2008. Central General or above for a total period of at least 3 Composition of Selection Committee
Government years in the army or equivalent ranking in the Navy (a) sitting Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by
Armed Forces Tribunal may deem fit. or Air Force; the Chief Justice of India as Chairperson
(Procedure For b) Has served for not less than one year as Judge (b) Chairperson, Armed Forces Tribunal
Investigation of Advocate General in the Army, Navy or Air Force (c)Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Misbehaviour or Incapacity and is not below the rank of Major General, Defence
of Chairperson, Vice- Commodore, or Air Commodore (d) Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Law
Chairperson and Other and Justice, Department Legal Affairs.
Members) Rules, 2008
 Annexures 42

(Ministry of Defence)

AAR-CCS Customs Act, 1962 No appeal Chairperson and Chairperson: Central Government
other members a) A person who is a retired Judge of the Supreme
Central Excise Act, 1944 Court;
Member:
Authority for Advance a) An officer of the Indian Customs and Central
Rulings for Customs and Excise Service who is qualified to be a member of
Central Excise (Salaries, the Board;
allowances and terms and (b) An officer of the Indian legal service who is, or
conditions of service of is qualified, to be, an Additional Secretary to the
Chairperson and Members) Government of India.
Rules, 2003.

(Ministry of Finance)
 Annexures 43

AAR-IT Income Tax Act,1961; High Court Chairman, Vice- Chairman Chairman, Vice-Chairman:
chairmen, (a) A Judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Central Government will select a Chairman and Vice-
Authority for Advance Revenue Justice of a High Court or High Court Judge for at Chairman on the basis of the recommendation of a
Rulings (Salaries and Members and least seven years. Selection Committee.
Allowances, Terms and Law Members (b) Vice-chairman, who has been Judge of a High
Conditions of Service of Court; Composition of a Selection Committee:
Chairman and Members) (a) The Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the
Rules, 1994. Revenue Member Supreme Court as nominated by the Chief Justice of
(a) Member of the Indian Revenue Service, who is, India as Chairman;
Authority for Advance or is qualified to be, a Member of the Board; or (b) The Secretary to the Government of India in the
Rulings (Procedure for (b) Member of the Indian Customs and Central Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.
Appointment as Chairman Excise Service, who is, or is qualified to be, a (c) The Secretary to the Government of India in the
and Vice-Chairman) Rules, Member of the Central Board of Excise and Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal
2016 Customs. Affairs.
c) A law Member from the Indian Legal Service, who (d) The Secretary to the Government of India in
(Ministry of Finance) is, or is qualified to be, an Additional Secretary to Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
the Government of India. Department of Personnel and Training
CWDT Inter-State River Water No appeal. Chairman and a) Chairman and Members must be sitting judges of Chairman and members are nominated by the Chief
Disputes Act, 1956 two Members, the Supreme Court or a High Court Justice of India.
nominated by
(Ministry of Water Chief Justice of
Resources) India
 Annexures 44

CAT The Administrative No appeal Chairman, Vice- Chairman- Chairman and other members:
Tribunals Act, 1985 Chairmen and (a) Is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or Appointed by the Central Government in consultation
Judicial, (b) Has, for at least two years, held the office of with the Chief Justice on the recommendation of the
Central Administrative Administrative Vice-Chairman; Selection Committee.
Tribunal (Salaries and members Vice-Chairman-
Allowances and Conditions (a) Is, or has been, or is qualified to be a Judge of a Composition of the Selection Committee
of Service of Chairman, High Court; or
Vice-Chairman and (b) Has for at least 2 years, held the post of a a) Sitting judge of the Supreme Court nominated by
Members) Rules, 1985. Secretary to the Government of India or any other the Chief Justice of India
post under the Central or a State Government with b) Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal
Administrative Tribunals the same scale of pay or c) Secretary, Government of India, Public Grievances
(Procedure for appointment (b) Has for at least 5 years, held the post of an and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and
of Members) Rules, 2011 Additional Secretary to the Government of India or Training.)
any other post under the Central or a State d) Secretary, Government of India in the Ministry of
Administrative Tribunals Government carrying the same scale of pay or Law and Justice, (Department of Legal Affairs)
(Procedure for Investigation (c) Has, for a period of not less than 3 years, held
of Misbehaviour or office as a Judicial Member or an Administrative
Incapacity of Chairmen, Member.
Vice-Chairman and Other Judicial Member-
Members) Rules, 2000 (a) Is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of
a High Court; or
(Ministry of Personnel, (b) Has been a member of the Indian Legal Service
Public Grievances and and has held a post in Grade I of the service for at
Pensions) least 3 years.
Administrative Member-
(a) Has, for at least 2 years, held the post of an
Additional Secretary to the Government of India or
any other post under the Central or a State
Government; or
(b) Has, for at least 3 years, held the post of a
Joint Secretary to the Government of India or any
other post under the Central or a State Government
 Annexures 45

carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of

a Joint Secretary to the Government of India.
 Annexures 46

CSTAA The Central Sales Tax Act, No appeal A chairman and Chairman Central Government
1956 2 members. a) Is a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, or a
retired Chief Justice of a High Court
(Ministry of Finance) Member
a) An officer of the Indian Legal Service who is, or
is qualified to be, an Additional Secretary to the
Government of India; and
b) An officer of a State Government not below the
rank of Secretary or an officer of the Central
Government not below the rank of Additional
Secretary, who is an expert in sales tax matters.
COMPAT Competition Act, 2002 Supreme Chairperson and Chairperson The Chairperson and members of the Appellate
Court not more than 2 a) The Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal shall Tribunal shall be appointed by the Central
Competition Appellate other members. be a person, who is, or has been a Judge of the Government from a panel of names recommended by
Tribunal (Salaries and Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a High a Selection Committee.
Allowances and other terms Court.
and conditions of service of Member Composition of the Selection Committee
the Chairperson and other a) A member of the Appellate Tribunal shall be (a) the Chief Justice of India or his nominee
Members) Rules, 2009 a person of ability, integrity and standing having (Chairperson)
special knowledge of, and professional experience (b) the Secretary in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs
(Ministry of Corporate of not less than twenty five years in, (c) the Secretary in the Ministry of Law and Justice
Affairs) competition matters including competition law
and policy, international trade, economics,
business, commerce, law, finance,
accountancy, management, industry, public
affairs, administration or in any other matter which
in the opinion of the Central Government, may
be useful to the Appellate Tribunal.
 Annexures 47

CESTAT The Customs Act, 1962 and High Court President, Vice- President: President: The Central Government will appoint the
President and as a) A person who is or has been a Judge of a High President.
Customs, Excise and Service many judicial Court; or Vice President- The Central Government appoints the
Tax Appellate Tribunal and technical b) One of the members of the Appellate Tribunal, Vice President.
Members members as the to be the President thereof.
(Recruitment and Central Vice-President The Central Government will appoint members and
Conditions of Service) Government a) Is or has been a member of the Appellate the Vice-Chairman to the Tribunal based on the
Rules, 1987 thinks fit. Tribunal for Customs ,Excise and Service Tax. recommendations of a Selection Committee.
Judicial member
(Ministry of Finance.) a) A person who has for at least 10 years held a Composition of a Selection Committee
judicial office or who has been a Grade I member (i) A Judge of the Supreme Court of India as
of the 'Indian Legal Service' for at least 3 years, or nominated by the Chief Justice of India (Chairman)
b) Who has been an advocate for at least 10 years. (ii) The Secretary to the Government of India in the
Technical member Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue);
a) Has been a member of the Indian Customs and (iii) the Secretary to the Government of India in the
Central Excise Service, Group A, and has held the Ministry of Law (Department of Legal Affairs);
post of Commissioner of Customs or Central Excise (iv) the President; and
or any equivalent or higher post for at least 3years. (v) such other persons, not exceeding two, as the
Central Government may nominate
A Judicial and Technical member has to be a
minimum of 45 years.
 Annexures 48

CyAT Information Technology High Court Chairperson and Chairperson The Selection of Chairperson and Members shall be
Act, 2000 such number of a) He is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge made by the Central Government in consultation with
other members of a High Court the Chief Justice of India
Cyber Appellate Tribunal as the Central Members
(Salary, Allowances and Government a) Appointed from amongst persons who is or has
Other Terms and Conditions may appoint. been a member of the Grade I, Indian Legal Service
of Service of Chairperson for at least 5 years and has held the post of
and Members) Rules, 2009 Additional Secretary for at least a year.
and b) Appointed from amongst persons having special
knowledge of, and professional experience in,
Cyber Appellate Tribunal information technology, telecommunications,
(Procedure for Investigation industry, management or consumer affairs; If
of Misbehaviour or person appointed from the Central Government of
Incapacity of Chairperson India then he should have held office for not less
and Members) Rules, 2009 than a year and if appointed from the State
Government, then the person must have held office
for a period of not less than 7 years.
(Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology )
 Annexures 49

DRAT The Recovery of Debts Due No appeal Chairperson Chairperson Central Government will appoint the Chairperson on
to Banks and Financial a) Is, or has been, or is qualified to be a, Judge of a the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The
Institutions Act, 1993 High Court; or Selection Committee shall recommend persons for
b) Has been a member of the Indian legal Service appointment of Chairperson from amongst the persons
(Ministry of Finance) and has held a post in Grade I of that service for at from the list of candidates prepared by the Ministry of
least three years; or finance after inviting necessary applications; and
c) Has held office has Presiding Officer of a from amongst the Judges of the High Court nominated
Tribunal for at least three years by the Chief Justice of such High Courts.

Composition of a Selection Committee

a) the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the

Supreme Court of India as nominated by the Chief
Justice of India
b) The Secretary to the Government of India in the
Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs)
c) The Secretary to the Government of India in the
Ministry of Law and Justice
d) The Governor, of the Reserve Bank or the Deputy
Governor of the Reserve Bank Nominated by the
Governor of the Reserve Bank
e) Secretary or Additional Secretary to the GOI in the
Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Financial Services
 Annexures 50

DRT The Recovery of Debts Due Debt Tribunal shall Presiding officer Central Government will appoint the Presiding Officer
to Banks and Financial Recovery consist of a a) Is, or has been , or is qualified to be a District on the basis of the list prepared by the Selection
Institutions Act, 1993 Appellate Presiding Judge Committee. The Selection Committee shall
Tribunal Officer. recommend persons for appointment as Presiding
Debts Recovery Tribunal Officer from amongst the list of candidates prepared
(Procedure for Investigation by the Ministry of Finance after inviting applications
of Misbehaviour or therefore by advertisement
Incapacity of Presiding
Officer) Rules, 2010. Composition of Selection Committee:

(Ministry of Finance) a) the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the

Supreme Court of India as nominated by the Chief
Justice of India
b) The Secretary to the Government of India in the
Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs)
c) The Secretary to the Government of India in the
Ministry of Law and Justice
d) The Governor, of the Reserve Bank or the Deputy
Governor of the Reserve Bank Nominated by the
Governor of the Reserve Bank
e) Secretary or Additional Secretary to the
Government of India in the Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services.

EPFAT The Employees' Provident No appeal. Presiding Officer Presiding Officer Presiding Officer to be appointed by the Central
Fund and Miscellaneous a) Has to be qualified to be a Judge of a High Court Government. No order of the Central Government
Provisions Act, 1952 or a District Judge. appointing any person as the Presiding Officer,

(Ministry of Labour and

Employment)
 Annexures 51

FCAT Cinematograph Act, 1952. No appeal Chairman and Chairman- Chairperson- The Central Government will appoint
not more than 4 a) Retired Judge of a High Court, or is a person who the Chairperson based on the eligibility criteria.
Cinematographer members. is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court. Members - The Central Government may, after
(Certification) Rules, 1983 b) Such persons who, in the opinion of the Central consultation with the Chairman of the Appellate
Government qualified to judge the effect of films Tribunal, appoint any person whom it thinks fit to be
(Ministry of Information and on the public, to be members of the Tribunal. a member of the Appellate Tribunal:
Broadcasting)
ITAT Income Tax Act, 1961, High Court Central Judicial members Central Government appoints members on the basis of
Government a) A minimum of 10 years’ experience of holding a the recommendation of the Selection Board. The
Income-tax. Appellate shall appoint as judicial office in the territory of India or Selection Board shall recommend persons for
Tribunal Members many judicial b) One who has been a Grade II member of the appointment as members from amongst the persons
(Recruitment and and accountant Indian Legal Service or any equivalent or higher on the list of candidates prepared by the Ministry of
Conditions of Service) members as it post for at least 3 years or Law after inviting applications by advertisement or on
Rules, 1963 deems fit. c) One who has been an advocate for at least 10 the recommendations of the appropriate authority.
years.
Composition of Selection Board:
(Ministry of Law and Accountant Members
Justice) a) An accountant with 10 years practice in (a) A nominee of the Minister of Law, who is the
accountancy as a chartered accountant under the Chairman of the Selection Board.
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, or b) Has a (b) The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry
registered accountant under any law formerly in of Law (Department of Legal Affairs);
force or partly as a registered accountant and c) the President or the Senior Vice-President of the
partly as a chartered accountant, or Tribunal, and
c) Who has been a member of the Indian Income- (d) Such other person, if any, not exceeding two, as
tax Service, Group A and has held the post of the Minister of Law may appoint.
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax or any
equivalent or higher post for at least three years.

Further,
i) A member must be less than thirty-five years of
age; or
 Annexures 52

ii) He is more than fifty years of age; provided that

the upper age limit may be relaxed:.
 Annexures 53

IPAB Indian Trademarks Act, No appeal Chairperson, Chairperson- The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and every other
1999 and Vice- a) Is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or Member shall be appointed by the President of India.
Chairperson and b) Has, for at least two years, held the office of a No appointment of a person as the Chairperson shall
The Intellectual Property such number of Vice-Chairperson. be made except after consultation with the Chief
Appellate Board (Salaries Members as the Vice-Chairperson- Justice of India.
and Allowances Payable to, Central a) Has, for at least two years, held the office of a
and other Terms and Government Judicial Member or a Technical Member; or
Conditions of Service of may deem fit. b) Has been a Member of the Indian Legal Service
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and has held a post in Grade I of that Service or any
and Members) Rules, 2003. higher post for at least 5 years.
Judicial Member-
(Ministry of Commerce) a) Has been a member of the Indian Legal Service
and has held the post in Grade I of that Service for
at least 3 years; or
b) Has, for at least 10 years, held a civil judicial
office.
Technical Member:-
a) Has, for at least 10 years, exercised functions of
a tribunal under this Act or under the Trade and
Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 or both, and
b) Has held a post not lower than the post of a
Joint Registrar for at least 5 years; or
c) Has, for at least 10 years, been an advocate of a
proven specialised experience in trade mark law.
KWDT-II Inter-State River Water No appeal. Chairman and Chairman and Members must be sitting judges of Chairman and members are nominated by the Chief
Disputes Act, 1956 two Members, the Supreme Court or a High Court Justice of India.
nominated by
(Ministry of Water Chief Justice of
Resources) India
 Annexures 54

MWDT Inter-State River Water No appeal. Chairman and Chairman and Members must be sitting judges of Chairman and members are nominated by the Chief
Disputes Act, 1956 two Members, the Supreme Court or a High Court Justice of India.
nominated by
(Ministry of Water Chief Justice of
Resources) India

NCLAT The Insolvency and Supreme Tribunal shall Chairperson Chairperson and the Judicial members:
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Court consist of a a) A person who is or has been a Judge of the Appointed by the Central government after
b) The Companies Act, 2013 Chairperson and Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a High Court consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
such number of
(Ministry of Corporate Judicial and Judicial member Technical members:
Affairs) technical a) Is or has been a judge of a High Court or is a They shall be appointed by the Central Government
members, not Judicial member of the tribunal for 5 years. on the recommendation of a Selection Committee.
exceeding
eleven. Technical member Composition of Selection Committee:
a) Shall be a person of proven ability, integrity and a) Chief Justice of India or his nominee as chairperson
standing having special knowledge and experience, b) A senior judge of the Supreme Court or a Chief
of not less than 25 years, in law, industrial finance, justice of high court as member
industrial management or administration, industrial c) Secretary in Ministry of Corporate Affairs as
reconstruction, investment, accountancy, labour member
matters, or such other disciplines related to d) Secretary in the Ministry of Law and Justice as
management, conduct of affairs, revival, member
rehabilitation and winding up of companies. e) Secretary in the Department of Financial Services
in the Ministry of Finance as member
 Annexures 55

NCLT Companies Act, 2013, National Tribunal The President President: The President of the tribunal, Judicial
Company comprises of the a)Shall be a person who is or has been a Judge of a Members of the Appellate Tribunal, shall be
National Company Law Law President and High Court for 5 years. appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of
Tribunal (Salary, Appellate such number of Judicial Members India.
Allowances and other Tribunal Judicial and a) Is, or has been, a judge of a High Court; or Technical members: Technical members shall be
Terms and Conditions of Technical b) Is, or has been, a District Judge for at least 5 appointed on the recommendation of a Selection
Service of President and members, as the years; or Committee.
other Members) Rules, 2015 Central c) Has, for at least 10 years been an advocate of a
Government court. Composition of the Selection Committee
(Ministry of Corporate may deem Technical Members (a) Chief Justice of India or his nominee as
Affairs) necessary. a) At least 15 years been a member of the Indian Chairperson;
Corporate Law Service or Indian Legal Service out b) A senior Judge of the Supreme Court or a Chief
of which at least three years shall be in the pay Justice of High Court
scale of Joint Secretary to the Government of India c) Secretary in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs
or equivalent or above in that service; or d) Secretary in the Ministry of Law and Justice
b) Is, or has been, in practice as a chartered e) Secretary in the Department of Financial Services
accountant for at least 15 years; or in the Ministry of Finance
c) Is, or has been, in practice as a cost accountant f) The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs shall be
for at least 15 years; or the Convener of the Selection Committee.
d) Is, or has been, in practice as a company
secretary for at least 15 years; or
e) Is a person of proven ability, integrity and
standing having special knowledge and experience,
of not less than 15 years, in related fields such as
law, industrial finance, industrial management etc.
or
vi) Is, or has been, for at least five years, a
presiding officer of a Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal constituted under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 person who has not completed
50 years of age shall not be eligible for
appointment as Member.
 Annexures 56

NCDRC The Consumer Protection Supreme President 4 or President President is appointed by the Central Government in
Act, 1986 Court more Members a) A person who is, or has been a Judge of the consultation with Chief Justice of India.
Supreme Court. Members are appointed by the Central Government on
(Ministry of Consumer Members- recommendation of Selection Committee.
Affairs, Food & Public a) Not less than 35 years of age
Distribution) b) Bachelor's degree from recognized university Composition of Selection Committee:
c) At least 10 years’ experience in dealing with a) Chairman (Judge of Supreme Court nominated by
problems relating to economics, law commerce, Chief Justice of India)
accountancy, industry, public affairs or b) Member (Secretary in the Department of Legal
administration (not more than 50% of the members Affairs)
shall be from amongst the persons having a judicial c) Member (Secretary in the department dealing with
background) Consumer Affairs)
NGT The National Green Supreme Chairperson, 10- Chairperson Chairperson is appointed by the Central Government
Tribunal Act, 2010 Court 20 Full time a) Judge of Supreme court or Chief Justice of High in consultation with Chief Justice of India
Judicial Court.
(Ministry of Environment, Members,10-20 Judicial Member Judicial members and expert members to be
Forest and Climate Change) Full time Expert b) Judge of Supreme Court or Chief Justice of High appointed on the recommendation of the Selection
Members, 1 or Court or Judge of High Court Committee by the Central government
more person Expert Member
with specialized a) Master of Science with a doctorate degree; or Composition of the Selection Committee:
knowledge Master of Engineering; or Master of Technology and a) Sitting judge of the Supreme Court to be
has experience of 15 years including 5 years nominated by the Chief Justice of India in
practical experience in relevant field; and including consultation with the Minister for Law and Justice as
5 years administrative experience. Chairperson
b) Chairperson of the Tribunal
c) Director, Indian Institute of Technology
d) An expert in Environmental Policy to be nominated
by the Minister for Environment and Forests
e) An expert in Forests Policy to be nominated by the
Minister for Environment and Forests
f) Secretary to the GOI in the Ministry of Environment
and Forests.
 Annexures 57

NHT The Control of National No appeal Tribunal shall Presiding officer The Presiding officer shall be appointed by the
Highways (Land and Traffic) consist of a) Is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court Central Government on the recommendation of a
Act, 2002 Presiding Officer b) Has been a member of the Indian legal service Selection Committee.
only and has held a post not less than Grade II of that
National Highways Tribunal service Composition of Selection Committee:
(Procedure for Appointment i) Judge of the Supreme Court of India as nominated
as Presiding Officer of the by the Chief Justice of India
Tribunals) Rules, 2003 ii) The Secretary to the Government of India in the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
National Highways iii) The Secretary to the Government of India in the
Tribunals (Procedure for Ministry of law and Justice
Investigation or Incapacity
of Presiding Officer) Rules,
2003.

(Ministry of Road Transport

& Highways)
RRT The Railways Act, 1989 No appeal Chairman and 2 Chairman Not specified
other members a) Is, or has been, a Judge of the Supreme Court or
(Ministry of Railways) to be appointed of a High Court.
by the Central Member
Government. a) Shall be a person, who, in the opinion of the
Central Government, has special knowledge of the
commercial, industrial or economic conditions of
the country, and
b) Shall be a person, who, in the opinion of the
Central Government, has special knowledge and
experience of the commercial working of the
railways.
 Annexures 58

RCT The Railways Claims High Court Chairman, 4 Chairman Chairman, Vice-Chairman and every other member
Tribunal Act, 1987 Vice-Chairman a) Is, or has been, a judge of a High Court; or shall be appointed by the President after consultation
and such b) Has, for at least two years, held the office of a with the Chief Justice of India.
(Ministry of Railways) number of Vice-Chairman
Judicial Vice Chairman-
Members and a) Is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a
Technical High Court; or
Members as the b) Has been a Grade I member of the Indian Legal
Central Service or any higher post for at least 5 years or
Government c) Has, for at least 5 years, held a civil judicial post
may deem fit. carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of
a Joint Secretary to the government of India; or d)
Has, for at least 5 years, held a post under a
railway administration carrying a scale of pay which
is not less than that of a Joint Secretary to the
Government of India or
e) has for a period of not less than 3 years, held
office as a Judicial Member or a Technical Member
Judicial Member-
a) Is or has been or is qualified to be, a Judge of a
High Court; or
b) Has been a Grade I member of the Indian Legal
Service and has held a post in Grade I of that
Service for at least 3 years; or has for at least three
years, held a civil judicial post carrying a scale of
pay which is not less than that of a Joint Secretary
to the Government of India.
Technical Member-
a) Has for at least 3 years, held a post under a
railway administration carrying a scale of pay which
is not less than that of a Joint Secretary to the
Government of India and has adequate knowledge
 Annexures 59

of rules and procedures of, and experience in,

claims and commercial matters relating to railways.
 Annexures 60

RBWDT Inter-State River Water No appeal. Chairman and Chairman and Members must be sitting judges of Chairman and members are nominated by the Chief
Disputes Act, 1956 two Members, the Supreme Court or a High Court Justice of India.
nominated by
(Ministry of Water Chief Justice of
Resources) India

REAT The Real Estate (Regulation High Court Chairperson and Chairperson: Chairperson
and Development) Act, not less than a) Is or has been a Judge of a High Court; He shall be appointed by the appropriate Government
2016 two Judicial Member: in
members(one a) He has held a judicial officer in the territory of consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court or
(Ministry of Housing and judicial and the India for at least fifteen years or his nominee.
Urban Affairs.) other b) Has been a member of the Indian Legal Service
Technical/Admi and has held the post of Additional Secretary of Judicial Members and Technical/Administrative
nistrative that service or any equivalent post, or has been an Members:
member) advocate for at least twenty years with experience They shall be appointed by the appropriate
in dealing with real estate matters; and Government on the recommendations of a Selection
Technical/Administrative Member: Committee.
a) A person who is well-versed in the
field of urban development, housing, real estate Composition of the Selection Committee:
development, infrastructure, economics, planning, a) Chief Justice of the High Court or his nominee.
law, commerce, accountancy, industry, b) The Secretary of the Department, handling Housing
management, public affairs or administration and and
possesses c) Law Secretary and in such manner as may be
experience of at least twenty years in the field. or prescribed.
b) Who has held the post in the Central
Government or a State Government equivalent to
the post of Additional Secretary to the Government
of India or an equivalent post in the Central
Government or an equivalent post in the State
Government.
 Annexures 61

SAT a) The Securities and Supreme Presiding Presiding Officer:

Exchange Board of India Court Officer and two a) Sitting or retired judge of Supreme Court or The Presiding Officer and member shall be appointed
Act, 1992 other members sitting or retired Chief Justice of a High Court. by the Central Government on the recommendation of
b) Securities Appellate Selection Committee to be constituted in consultation
Tribunal (Salaries, Member: with the Chief Justice of India.
Allowance and other Terms a) Qualification and experience of Corporate law, Composition of the Selection Committee:
and Conditions of Presiding securities law, finance, economics or accountancy (a) Governor, Reserve Bank of India or his nominee
Officer and Other Members) (b) Finance Secretary/Secretary, Department of
Rules, 2003 Economic Affairs
(c) Presiding Officer, Securities Appellate Tribunal
(Ministry of Finance) The Government shall have the right to return the
name/panel for reconsideration by the Committee
and for submission of a fresh name/panel.
TDSAT The Telecom Regulatory Supreme Chairperson and Chairperson- The selection of Chairperson and members of the
Authority of India Act, 1997 Court not more than a) Is, or has been, a judge of the Supreme Court or Appellate Tribunal shall be made by the Central
two members the Chief Justice of High Court Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of
Telecom Disputes Member India
Settlement and Appellate a) Has held the post of Secretary to the
Tribunal (Salary, Government of India or any equivalent post in the
Allowances and Other Central Government or the State Government for a
Conditions of Service of the period of not less than two years or
Officers and Employees) b) A person who is well versed in the field of
Rules, 2001 technology, telecommunication, industry,
commerce or administration
(Ministry of
Communication)
VWDT Vansdhara Water Disputes Vansdhara Vansdhara Vansdhara Water Disputes Tribunal Chairman and members are nominated by the Chief
Tribunal Water Water Disputes Justice of India.
Disputes Tribunal
(Ministry of Water Tribunal
Resources)
 Annexures 62

Tenure, Reappointment, Removal, and Post-retirement restrictions

TRIBUNAL TENURE AND REMOVAL POST-RETIREMENT RESTRICTION

REAPPOINTMENT
AAT Chairperson: 3 years / Grounds of removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity No post retirement restrictions.
Chairperson- 62 years Inquiry whether Mandatory: Yes.
Authority for inquiry: Judge of the Supreme Court.
No provision on
reappointment
AERAT Chairperson and Members: 3 Grounds of removal: No post retirement restrictions.
years / Chairperson- 70 a) Has been adjudged an insolvent
years b) Has been convicted of an offence which in the opinion of the Central Government,
Member- 65 years involves moral turpitude
c) Has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as the Chairperson or a
No provision on member
reappointment d) Has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his
functions as the Chairperson or a member
e) Has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the
public interest
(hereinafter referred to as the 'five grounds')
Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes, only for grounds (d) &(e)
Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court
 Annexures 63

ATBT Chairperson and Member-5 Chairperson and Judicial Members No post retirement restrictions.
years / Chairperson and
Members- 65 years Grounds of removal: Five grounds.
Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes
Reappointment barred. Authority for inquiry: Chief Justice of the High Court

Administrative Member

Grounds: Five grounds. Method of removal not specified.

APTEL Chairperson and Members- 3 Grounds of Removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity No post retirement restrictions
years / Chairperson- 70 Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes
years Authority for inquiry: sitting judge of the Supreme Court.
Members- 65 years

Reappointment allowed.
ATFE Chairperson and Members- 5 Grounds of Removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity Post retirement restrictions exist.
years / Chairperson- 65 Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes
years Authority for inquiry: Inquiry can be made by such person as the President may appoint
Members-62 years for this purpose.

Reappointment barred.
ATFP-PML Chairperson- 5 years Grounds of removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity. No post retirement restrictions.
Member- 5 years / Inquiry mandatory whether: Yes
Chairman- 70 or 67 years Authority for inquiry: Inquiry will be made by a person appointed by the President.
Member- 65 years

No provision on
reappointment
 Annexures 64

ATFP-SAFEMA Chairman- 3 years No provision on removal. No post retirement restrictions.

/ Chairman- 62 or 65 years
Members- 60 years

Reappointment provision
not clear
AFT Chairperson and Member- 4 Member: Post retirement restrictions exist.
years / Chairperson- 70 Grounds for Removal: Misbehaviour or incapacity
years or 65 years Inquiry whether mandatory: No. If any complaint is received, the Central Government
Member- 65 years shall make a preliminary scrutiny of such complaint. If on such scrutiny, the Central
Government considers it necessary to investigate, it will place it before a Committee
No provision on consisting of the following members:
reappointment a) Cabinet Secretary as Chairperson,
b) Secretary, Ministry of Defence
c) Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice.
This Committee submits its findings to the President. If he feels that there are
reasonable grounds for an inquiry, he shall make a reference to the Chief Justice of India
requesting him to nominate a judge of the Supreme Court to make an inquiry.
Authority for inquiry: Judge of Supreme Court

AAR-CCS Chairperson- 3 years / No provision on removal. No post retirement restriction

Chairman- 70 years
Members- 62 years

Reappointment allowed.
AAR-IT 3 years / Chairman- 70 No provision on removal. No post retirement restriction
years
Members: 62 years

Reappointment allowed.
 Annexures 65

CWDT Not applicable / Age of Not applicable No post retirement restrictions.

retirement same as sitting
judge of a Supreme
Court/High Court

Not applicable
CAT The Chairman, Vice- Grounds for removal: Proved misbehaviour and incapacity Post retirement restrictions exist for the
Chairman or other Member - Whether inquiry mandatory: No. Such a removal must be based on a preliminary Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central
5 years / Chairman, Vice- scrutiny by the Central Government, which shall place it before a Committee comprising Administrative Tribunal.
Chairman and Member- 65 of i) Cabinet Secretary as Chairman, ii) Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public
years Grievances and Pensions and Secretary. Iii) Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law,
Justice and Company Affairs as Members.
Reappointment allowed.
Based on the investigation of this committee, if the President feels that there are
reasonable grounds for making any inquiry, a reference should be made to the Chief
Justice of India.
Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court.

CSTAA No information available / No information available No post retirement restrictions.

No information available

No provision on
reappointment
COMPAT Chairperson and Member-5 Grounds of removal: Five grounds and an additional one where the member or No post retirement restrictions.
years / Chairperson- 68 chairperson has been engaged at any time, during his terms of office, in any paid
years employment.
Members- 65 years. Inquiry Whether mandatory: Yes, but only for grounds (e) and (f).
Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court.
Reappointment allowed.
 Annexures 66

CESTAT President- 3 years / No provision on removal. No post retirement restriction.

President- 65 years
Member- 62 years

No provision on
reappointment
CyAT Chairperson or Member- 5 Chairperson and Members: No post retirement restriction
years / Chairperson and
Members- 65 years Grounds of removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Inquiry whether mandatory: No. In case there is an allegation, there will be a
No provision on preliminary scrutiny. If on preliminary scrutiny the Central Government considers it
reappointment necessary to investigate into the allegation, it shall place the complaint before a
Committee comprising of the i) Secretary, Co-ordination and Public Grievances in the
Cabinet Secretariat as Chairperson, ii) Secretary, Department of Information Technology
and iii) Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice as members.
On receipt of the report of the Committee, if the President is of the opinion that there
are reasonable grounds for making an inquiry, he shall make a reference to the Chief
Justice of India.
Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court
DRAT Chairperson 5 years / Grounds for removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity. No post retirement restrictions
Chairperson- 65 years Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes
Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court.
Reappointment allowed.
DRT Presiding Officer- 5 years / No post retirement restrictions
Presiding Officer- 62 Years Grounds of removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes.
No provision on Authority for inquiry: Judge, High Court
reappointment
 Annexures 67

EPFAT Presiding officer- 5 years. / Ground of removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity No post retirement restrictions.
Presiding Officer- 62 years Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes
Authority for inquiry: Judge, High Court
No provision on
reappointment
FCAT Chairperson and Members- 3 Members- the Central Government may remove from office any member of the No post retirement restrictions
years / No information Appellate Tribunal before the expiry of his term of office after consultation with the
available Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal or on the recommendation of the Chairman of the
Appellate Tribunal.
Reappointment allowed for
Chairman
ITAT No information available / No provision on removal. No post retirement restriction
President- 65 years, Vice
President, and Members- 62
years

No provision on
reappointment
IPAB Chairperson, Vice- Grounds of removal: Proved incapacity and misbehaviour No post retirement restrictions
Chairperson or other Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes
Members- 5 years / Authority for Inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court
Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson- 65 years
Member- 62 years.

No provision on
reappointment
KWDT-II Not applicable / Age of Not applicable No post retirement restrictions.
retirement same as sitting
judge of a Supreme
Court/High Court
 Annexures 68

Not applicable

MWDT Not applicable / Age of Not applicable No post retirement restrictions.

retirement same as sitting
judge of a Supreme
Court/High Court

Not applicable
NCLAT Chairperson and members- Chairperson and Other Members: No post retirement restriction
5 years / Chairperson- 70
years Members- 67 years Grounds of removal: 5 grounds and proved misbehaviour and incapacity.
Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes.
Reappointment allowed. Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court.
NCLT President and other Grounds of removal: Five Grounds. No post retirement restriction
members- 5 years / Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes
President- 67 years Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court of India.
Other members- 65 years

Reappointment allowed.
NCDRC President and members- 5 Chairman and Members are disqualified for appointment on the following grounds: No post retirement restriction
years / President and
members- 70 years a) If they have been convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for an office which
involves moral turpitude
Reappointment allowed. b) If they have been found to be an undischarged insolvent
c) If they are of unsound mind and stand so declared by a competent court
d) If they have been removed or dismissed from the Service of the Government or a body
corporate owned or controlled by the Government
e) If they have in such financial or other interest that is likely to prejudicially affect the
discharge by him or his functions as member.
 Annexures 69

f) If they have any such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the Central
Government

NGT Chairperson, Judicial Grounds for removal: Five grounds. No post retirement restriction
Members and Expert Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes.
Members- 5 years Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court
/ Supreme Court Judge- 70
years
Chief Justice of High Court-
67 Years
Judge of High Court- 67
Years
Expert Member- 65 Years

Reappointment barred.
NHT Till the age of retirement / Grounds of Removal: Proved misbehaviour and incapacity. No post retirement restriction
Presiding Officer- 62 Years Inquiry whether mandatory: No. If on preliminary scrutiny, the President considers it
necessary to investigate into the allegation it shall place the complaint before a
No provision on Committee consisting of the following persons to investigate the charges. The
reappointment Committee comprises of i) Secretary (Coordination and Public Grievances) Cabinet
Secretariat ii) Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways iii) Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice. The Committee shall submit its
findings to the President who, if he is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds
for making an inquiry, shall make a reference to the Chief Justice of India.
Authority for inquiry: Judge, High Court.
 Annexures 70

RRT Chairperson and Members- 5 In case the Chairman or any other member is, by infirmity or otherwise, rendered No post retirement restriction
years / No information incapable of carrying out his duties or is absent on leave or otherwise in circumstances
available not involving the vacation of his office, the Central Government may appoint another
person to act in his place during his absence.
Reappointment barred.
RCT Chairman, Vice Chairman Grounds of Removal: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Post retirement restrictions exist for the
and Member- 5 years / Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes. Chairman and Vice-Chairman. A member is
Chairman- 65 years Authority for Inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court. eligible for appointment as the Chairman, Vice-
Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Railways Claims Tribunal or
Members- 62 years any other Tribunal but not in the employment
of either the Government of India or
No provision on Government of state.
reappointment
RBWDT Not applicable / Age of Not applicable No post retirement restrictions.
retirement same as sitting
judge of a Supreme
Court/High Court

Not applicable
REAT Chairperson and members- Grounds of removal: Five grounds. Post retirement restriction exists for
5 years / Chairperson: 67 Inquiry whether mandatory: Not specified. Members can be removed by the Chairperson, judicial, technical and
years Member: 65 years Appropriate Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. administrative members.
Authority for inquiry: Not mentioned.
Reappointment barred.
SAT Presiding Officer and Grounds for removal: Five grounds No post retirement restrictions
Members- 5 years / Inquiry whether mandatory: Yes.
Presiding officer- 68 years Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court.
Member- 62 Years

No provision on
reappointment
 Annexures 71

TDSAT Chairperson and members- Grounds of removal: Five grounds. Post retirement restrictions exist for
3 years / Chairperson- 65 Inquiry whether mandatory: Inquiry mandatory only for ground (d) and (e). Chairperson and other members.
years Member- 65 years Authority for inquiry: Judge, Supreme Court

No provision on
reappointment
VWDT Not applicable / Age of Not applicable No post retirement restrictions.
retirement same as sitting
judge of a Supreme
Court/High Court

Not applicable

A NNE X URE -C S UB JE CT MA TTE R A N D JU RIS DI CTI ON O F T RI B UNA L S

Tribunal Nodal Ministry Subject Matter Jurisdiction

AAT Ministry of Civil Aviation Claims related to eviction from airport premises. It has original jurisdiction and hears appeals against the order of the quasi-judicial
officer, Eviction Officer who may evict persons in unauthorised occupation of airport
premises.

AERAAT Ministry of Civil Aviation The AERAAT regulates tariff and other charges for the It decides any dispute between two or more service providers, between a service
aeronautical services rendered at airports and also monitors providers and a group of consumer. It also decides any appeals against the decision of
performance standards of airports the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority which determines tariff for aeronautical
services and other related fees It doesn’t have jurisdiction over anything that would
come under the purview of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, or
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or anything appealable under section 28K of the
Airports Authority of India
Act, 1994.
 Annexures 72

APTEL Ministry of Power Under the Electricity Act, the tribunal deals with generation, The tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear appeals against the orders of the Adjudicating
transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity as well as officer or The Central Regulatory Commission or State Regulatory Commission or Joint
the electricity industry in general. Under the Petroleum and Commission which can adjudicate disputes relating to availability of transmission
Natural Gas Regulatory Act, it deals with petroleum, petroleum facility, the quality of electricity, operation of the grid etc. Under the Petroleum And
products and natural gas excluding production of crude oil and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006, it hears appeals against any decision of the
natural gas. board which deals with petroleum and its products as well as natural gas.

ATFE Ministry of Finance Promotion and development of foreign exchange in India and It has appellate jurisdiction and entertains appeals against the orders of the
facilitate external trade and payments. Adjudicating Authorities and the Special Director (Appeals) which decide disputes
related to Foreign Exchange Management Act.

ATFP Ministry of Finance It deals with forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit It has appellate jurisdiction and hears: appeals against seizure of property under the
(SAFEMA, traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; illegally NDPS by competent authority; appeals against any order of a competent authority
PMLA) acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange forfeiting acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators; It hears
manipulators; matters related to money laundering by seizure of appeals against the orders of the Adjudicating Authority which decides whether any of
properties obtained from money laundering. the property seized is involved in money laundering.

AFT Ministry of Defence Disputes and complaints related to commission, appointments, The tribunal has original jurisdiction over all military personnel and their heirs in all
enrolments and conditions of service in respect of persons subject service related matters. It has appellate jurisdiction with regards to decision of courts-
to the Army Act, 1950, The Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, martial on service related matters.
1950.

AAR-CCS Ministry of Finance "advance ruling" means the determination, by the authority, of a Jurisdiction over "applicants" which are: non-resident setting up a joint venture in India
question of law or fact specified in the application regarding the in collaboration with a non-resident or resident, or a resident setting up a joint venture
liability to pay duty in relation to an activity which is proposed to in India in collaboration with a non-resident, making application. They examine appeals
be undertaken, by the applicant. If the applicant thinks the against the order of the competent authority under their respective Acts, however this
charge should be different, they apply to the Authority for an is an original jurisdiction, considering that the competent authority does not exercise
Advance Ruling, determining their liability. adjudicatory powers.
 Annexures 73

AAR-IT Ministry of Finance Advance Ruling means written opinion or authoritative decision by Jurisdiction over "applicants" which are: a non-resident; a resident-undertaking
an Authority empowered to render it with regard to the tax proposing to undertake a transaction with a non-resident can obtain advance ruling in
consequences of a transaction or proposed transaction or an respect of any question of law or fact in relation to the tax liability of the non-resident
assessment in regard thereto. arising out of such transaction; a resident who has undertaken or propose to undertake
one or more transactions of value of Rs.100 crore or more in total; a notified public
sector company; any person, being a resident or non-resident, can obtain an advance
ruling to decide whether an arrangement proposed to be undertaken by him is an
impermissible avoidance arrangements and may be subjected to General Anti
Avoidance Rules or not.

CAT Ministry of Personnel, Adjudication of disputes and complaints with respect to Original jurisdiction on all such matters against any order or decision of the concerned
Public Grievances and recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to competent authority.
Pensions public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the
Union or other authorities under the control of the Government.

CESTAT Ministry of Finance Expeditious disposal of appeals in matters relating to these Appeals against Appellate Collector or the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the
indirect taxes. Prior to this tribunal, there existed no right to Commissioners (Appeals)
appeal.

CSTAA Ministry of Finance To settle Inter-State disputes falling under Section 6A read with Appellate, against highest state appellate authority.
section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

COMPAT Ministry of Corporate To hear and dispose of appeals against any direction issued or Appeals against orders by the Competition Commission of India
Affairs decision made or order passed by the Competition Commission of
India under sub-sections (2) and (6) of section 26, section 27,
section 28, section 31, section 32, section 33, section 38, section
39, section 43, section 43A, section 44, section 45 or section 46 of
the Competition Act; to adjudicate on claim for compensation
that may arise from the findings of the Commission or the orders
of the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal against any finding of the
Commission or under section 42A or under sub- section(2) of
section 53Q of the Competition Act, and pass orders for the
recovery of compensation under section 53N of the Competition
Act.
 Annexures 74

CyAT Ministry of Electronics The Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall has the same powers as a civil Appellate jurisdiction. Appeals against order of Adjudicating Officer or Controller.
and Information court, in matters related to the Information Technology Act,
Technology 2000, while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters,
namely:— (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery
and production of documents or other electronic records; (c)
receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) issuing commissions for the
examination of witnesses or documents; (e) reviewing its
decisions; (f) dismissing an application for default or deciding it
ex pane; (g) any other matter which may be prescribed.

DRT Ministry of Finance Under the RDDBFI, banks and financial institutions apply to the It has original jurisdiction with respect to any bank or financial institution’s claim for
DRT for recovery of any debts due to them. Under the SARFAESI, the debt due to it as well as claims by any person aggrieved by an action of the bank.
borrowers, guarantors, and other any other person aggrieved by The DRT only has jurisdiction when the amount due to banks and financial institutions
any action of the bank can approach the DRT. is more than ten lakh rupees or such other amount, being not less than one lakh
rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify.

DRAT Ministry of Finance Under the RDDBFI, banks and financial institutions apply to the The DRAT has appellate jurisdiction and deals with any appeals made against the order
DRT for recovery of any debts due to them. Under the SARFAESI, or decision of the DRT.
borrowers, guarantors, and other any other person aggrieved by
any action of the bank can approach the DRT.

EPFAT Ministry of Labour and A person aggrieved by an employer's defaulting payment to the It has appellate jurisdiction from an order of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employment Provident Fund or Insurance Scheme can approach the EPFAT any Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund
from an order of the Commissioner. Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, or any Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner on disputes regarding provident fund can approach the EPFAT.

FCAT Ministry of Information Any person applying for a certificate in respect of a film who is The Board performs purely certification function after having viewed the film and as
and Broadcasting aggrieved by any order of the Board of Film Certification can the FCAT is the forum of first hearing of the dispute it has original jurisdiction.
approach the FCAT.

ITAT Ministry of Law and Assessment of income tax liability under the Income Tax Act, Appellate jurisdiction against orders of various authorities under the Income Tax Act
Justice- Department of 1961. such as the Principal Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals), Assessing Officer relating
Legal Affairs to matters such as assessment of tax liability.
 Annexures 75

IPAB Department of Industrial In case of an unsatisfactory order from Patents Controller The Regulators perform only statutory functions that does not involve adjudication.
Policy and Promotion, Trademark Registry, GI Registry, Copyright Registry with respect Therefore, IPAB has original jurisdiction.
Ministry of Commerce to the intellectual property the IPAB can be approached for
resolution.

NCLT Ministry of Corporate Any matter of dispute regarding a company incorporated under NCLT has an original jurisdiction.
Affairs the Companies Act, 2013

NCLAT Ministry of Corporate Same as above NCLAT hears appeals from the orders of NCLAT.
Affairs

NCDRC Department of Consumer To enable consumers to secure less expensive and speedy To entertain a complaint valued more than one crore and also have Appellate and
Affairs, Ministry of redressal of their grievances. Revisional jurisdiction from the orders of State Commissions or the District fora as the
Consumer Affairs, Food case may be.
& Public Distribution

NGT Ministry of Environment, Effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to NGT will have jurisdiction over all civil cases involving substantial question of the
Forest and Climate environmental protection and conservation of forests and other environment.
Change natural resources including enforcement of any legal right
relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for
damages to persons and property

NHT Ministry of Highways and This tribunal deals with removal of unauthorised occupation from It has appellate jurisdiction and entertains appeals against decision taken by the
Surface Transport highways, recovery of cost to do so and fine imposed, right to Highway Administration or any officer authorised on its behalf taken under sections 26,
access to highways, prevention and repair of damages to highway, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38 of the Act (removal of unauthorised occupation from highways,
prohibition to leave animals and vehicles in dangerous positions prevention of damage to highways and their repair, construction on highway land, etc)
and construction on highway land.

RCT Ministry of Railways It deals with liability of the Railways in case of any accident and It has jurisdiction to hear claims against the railway administration related to loss,
also compensation and refund of freight in case of any loss, destruction, damage, non-delivery or deterioration of goods entrusted to them for
damage or no delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway carriage and for death or injuries or loss to a passenger in a railway accident or
administration for carriage by railway. untoward incident.

RRT Ministry of Railways It deals with any complaints against the railway administration. It has original jurisdiction to hear complaints against railway administration .

REAT Ministry of Housing and establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal Appellate jurisdiction from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Urban Affairs and also to establish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from
 Annexures 76

the decisions, directions or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory

Authority and the adjudicating officer and for matters

SAT Ministry of Finance It deals with the stock exchanges and other securities market, It has appellate jurisdiction with regards any decision of SEBI which deals with issues
protection of investors’ interest and all related matters. pertaining to the securities market in India.

TDSAT Ministry of It deals with challenges to the computation of license fee by the It has both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. On one hand it has
Communications and licensor, wrongful levy and charge of royalty and license fee for jurisdiction to adjudicate any disputes between a licensor and
Information Technology frequency allocation, blocking of calls by one group of service licensee, two or more service providers or between a service provider
providers, disputes relating to default traffic, challenges to tariff and consumers which relate to the telecom sector. On the other hand,
fixed by TRAI, encashment of bank guarantees, disputes between it has appellate jurisdiction with regards to any appeal against a decision of the TRAI
broadcasters etc. which deals with telecom sector and interests of service providers and consumers.
However, it doesn’t have jurisdiction over anything that would come under the purview
of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, or Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum or Section 7B(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885.

CWDT Ministry for Water Water dispute regarding interstate river Cauvery and the river Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
Resources valley thereof.

KWDT-II Ministry for Water Water dispute regarding the Inter-State river Krishna and the river Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka
Resources valley thereof.

MWDT Ministry for Water Water dispute relating to Mahadayi river Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra
Resources

VWDT Ministry for Water Water dispute relating to Vasandhara river Orissa and Andhra Pradesh
Resources

RBWDT Ministry for Water Water dispute regarding the water of Ravi and Beas Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan
Resources
 Annexures 77

A NNE X URE -D T RIB UNA L S IN FO RE I GN J U RIS DIC TI ONS

(a) France

French tribunals, known as Administrative Courts (Ordre administratif), have a general jurisdiction on administrative matters. This system comprises three levels, a first instance tribunal, an
appellate tribunal, and a second appellate tribunal.121 Considering that there are two appeals, there is no provision enabling judicial review from the regular courts or an appeal to the regular
courts.122 In terms of specific subject matter, this general administrative jurisdiction includes the review of administrative decisions by branches of government, direct taxes, employment, actions
by regional councils, municipal elections, etc. making the jurisdiction significantly wide. 123 However, considering the restriction of appeals to or review by regular courts, this system, while
efficient for France, would be not be viable in the Indian context. This impracticability has also been acknowledged by the Law Commission of India.124

(b) South Africa

South Africa, being a former British colony, inherited a similar framework of tribunals as India did. It is multifaceted and serves multiple functions. Broadly, tribunals in South Africa serve one or
more of the following functions: Administrative, Judicial, Hybrid (both, administrative and judicial), Quasi-judicial, and Sui generis.125 Furthermore, each tribunal’s scope of powers, functions,
and jurisdiction are determined by statute.126 Therefore, such a system is a varied one that does not operate uniformly. In fact, much like India, the South African tribunals framework has been
criticised for its lack of uniformity, incoherence and haphazard nature.127 Since the present Indian framework suffers from problems that emanate from a lack of uniformity, it leaves little scope
to apply features of the South African tribunals framework to India.

(c) Canada

121 The Judiciary in France, available at http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/plaquette_justiceenfrance_angl.pdf (last accessed on 6th February, 2018)
122 Ibid.
123 Ibid.
124 272nd Report, Law Commission of India, p. 11
125 Rashri Baboolal , A Discussion of Jurisdiction in South Africa, Frank University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 31 and 32 available at
http://socioeconomica.info/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11171/223/3.pdf?sequence=1 (last accessed on 13th February, 2018)
126 Ibid.
127 Gillian Claire Armstrong, “Administrative Justice and Tribunals in South Africa: A Commonwealth Comparison, December 2011, Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law, University of Stellenbosch, P 130 onwards (History

of Tribunal Reform in SA)

 Annexures 78

Administrative tribunals in Canada are specialised, quasi-judicial, decision-making authorities that are created under specific Acts of the legislature, distinct from the ordinary court system. Apart
from adjudication, several tribunals are vested with investigative/fact-finding jurisdictions, potentially overseeing multiple statutes. For instance, the Ontario Child and Family Services Review
Board gets its powers from the Child and Family Services Act (1990), the Intercountry Adoption Act (1998) and the Education Act (1990). Canada has two levels of administrative tribunals: Federal
and Provincial. Appointments to the tribunals are made by the order-in council, which is a formal order by the Governor General backed by the Cabinet or a Committee of the Cabinet.128 The
Canadian courts have been entrusted with the power to review tribunals’ decisions, even where the statue does not explicitly provide for an appeal.129 Certain administrative tribunals are given
the power to enforce their decisions themselves, either as adjudicatory bodies or as regulatory and licensing bodies.130 The federal administrative tribunals are granted secretarial support through
the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act.131 Considering the fact that the tribunals in Canada are an extension of the executive, it leaves little scope for the framework’s
application in the Indian context.

(d) Australia

Australia enacted the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, 1975 which set up the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT is a tribunal “with general jurisdiction to review a large range
of government administrative decisions involved very advanced thinking.”132 The Parliament of Australia has since conferred jurisdiction of over 400 Acts to the AAT for administrative review.133
The Law Commission also noted that following this, several tribunals have been set up in Australia, such as the Equal Opportunity Tribunal, the Migration Tribunal, etc. Tribunals are considered
an extension of the Executive and therefore do not exercise judicial power, in compliance with the separation of powers doctrine. 134 Justice Garry Downes (former President of the AAT) notes
that tribunals fulfil one or more of three functions: (a) Reviewing administrative decisions or the executive decisions of government; (b) Making original administrative decisions; (c) Resolving
disputes in areas including consumer trading, tenancy and similar matters. 135 They are executive bodies exercising “merits review”, where the merit of the administrative action in question,

128 Kuttner, Thomas S. “Administrative Tribunals in Canada,” The Canadian Encyclopaedia, 6 February 2006, (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/administrative-tribunals/) ( last accessed on 14th
February, 2018)
129 272nd Report, Law Commission of India, at p. 17
130 Ibid.
131 “How Courts are organized”, Department of Justice website, available at http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/07.html (last accessed on 13th February, 2018)
132 Hon. Justice Garry Downes, “Tribunals in Australia: Their roles and responsibilities”, Reform (Australian Law Reform Commission’s Journal), Issue 84, Autumn 2004, available at
http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Speeches%20and%20Papers/tribunals.pdf (last accessed on 21st April, 2018) at p. 3
133 Ibid.
134 Hon. Justice Garry Downes, “Overview of Tribunals Scene in Australia”, International Tribunals Workshop, Canberra, 8 April, 2006, available at
http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Speeches%20and%20Papers/OverviewTribunalsSceneApril2006.pdf (last accessed on 21st April, 2018) at p. 2
135 Ibid.
 Annexures 79

independent of its legality, is reviewed.136 making this model unviable in India, where tribunals are independent of the executive. While the Australian framework is ill-suited for the Indian
context, it is important to note that Australia too has chosen the tactic of merging tribunals via the Tribunals Amalgamation Act, 2015, with an expected saving $20.2 million over four years.137

(e) United Kingdom (UK)

The tribunals in UK have gone through several evolutionary changes, and was scrutinised multiple times, beginning with the Donoughmore Committee Report (1932), followed by the Franks
Committee Report (1957), and most recently, the Leggatt Committee Report (2001). 138 While the Donoughmore Committee debated questions of constitutionality, recommending the appropriate
circumstances when tribunals ought to be established, the Franks Committee addressed the question of procedure and oversight, recommending supervision by British and Scottish Councils on
Tribunals. Finally, the Leggatt Committee scrutinised the framework as recently as 2001, leading to the promulgation of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, 2007.

The problems that were identified by the Leggatt Committee Report included lack of independence and impartiality in its functioning, as the tribunals adjudicated upon actions of the executive
who are also in charge of their appointments. Departments of the government provide administrative support to these tribunals, such as salaries, infrastructural support, etc., resulting in a
perception that tribunal members identified with their respective sponsoring department, against whom they were supposed to hear disputes.139 The lack of uniformity and the ad-hoc manner in
which the tribunals were set up by different departments based on need is an additional issue. The fifth chapter of the Leggatt Report covers the Committee’s primary recommendation to revamp
the United Kingdom’s tribunals framework. The committee identified three elements that are prerequisite for a streamlined system:140

a. creating the initial core (tribunals) service;

b. developing new ways of working, new processes and new rules for the service;
c. preparing other tribunals for inclusion in the service.

The proposed streamlining intended to create the following divisions:

- First-tier tribunals: The Committee proposed a grouping of tribunals based on subject-matter into coherent areas of work called Divisions, each of which would be administered by a
single government department.141 Consequently, tribunals were grouped into nine Divisions: Immigration, Social Security and Pensions, Land and Valuation, Financial, Transport, Health
and Social Services, Education, Regulatory, and Employment.
- Second-tier tribunals - The Leggatt Report recommended that there should be a single route for all appeals from first-tier tribunals.142

136 Ibid.
137 Moira Coombs, “ Amalgamation of Merits Review Tribunal”, available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201415/Tribunals (last
accessed on 21st April, 2018)
138 Gavin Drewry, The Judicialisation of ‘Administrative’ Tribunals In The UK: From Hewart to Leggatt,Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 28 E SI/2009, at p.47
139 Andrew Leggatt, ‘Tribunals for Users- One System, One Service : Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt’, The National Archives, March 2001, available at -
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060214102004/http://www.tribunals-review.org.uk/ (last accessed on 12th February, 2018), at para 2.20
140 Ibid. para 5.16
141 Ibid. para 6.3
142 Ibid. para 6.5
 Annexures 80

In order to ensure the independence of the tribunals, the Leggatt Committee developed a clear separation between the ministries and other authorities, whose policies and decisions are tested
by the tribunals, and the minister who appoints and supports them. To centralise the administration and form a coherent system of tribunals, the Leggatt Committee suggested that tribunals
should be made to sit alongside ordinary courts, by bringing their administrative control under the Lord Chancellor’s Department. The United Kingdom model in its present iteration presents
beneficial features that could be applied in India, particularly a merger of tribunals based on subject-matter. As noted earlier, this is a route that even Australia has now taken, with the Tribunals
Amalgamation Act in 2015.
Please direct all correspondence to:
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran,
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy,
D-359, Defence Colony, New Delhi- 110024
Phone: 011-43102767/43831699
Email: sumathi.chandrashekaran@vidhilegalpolicy.in