Tribunals

What is 'Tribunal'?

A Tribunal is a quasi-judicial bodies that decide disputes, usually within specific subject areas such as taxation, environment, company law, or administrative services. Tribunals are distinct from courts, though they perform similar adjudicatory functions. Their primary objective is to offer speedier resolution of disputes, and bring in subject-matter expertise that regular courts may lack.

Tribunals are generally composed of both judicial members (persons with legal/judicial experience) and technical members (experts in the relevant field), allowing them to handle complex legal-technical issues more efficiently. While tribunals are not bound by the strict procedures of civil courts, they are required to follow principles of natural justice.

In the Indian context, tribunals were created to relieve the judiciary of its increasing caseload and to provide a platform for adjudicating specialized matters. They have now become an integral part of India’s justice delivery system, operating across a range of administrative, regulatory, and economic domains.

Official Definition of 'Tribunal'

In the Indian legal system, a tribunal refers to a body that is not a court in the traditional constitutional sense, but one which is vested with adjudicatory powers to resolve specific kinds of disputes, typically under a particular statute. While there is no single statutory definition that comprehensively defines "tribunal," its meaning has evolved through constitutional provisions, judicial interpretation, and legislative frameworks.

‘Tribunal’ as Defined in Legislation(s)

Although most laws establishing tribunals do not define the term “tribunal” in abstract terms, constitutional and statutory provisions establish the legal recognition and functional framework of tribunals:

• Article 136 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from “any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal.”
• Article 227 confers superintendence powers to High Courts over all courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction, except those relating to the Armed Forces.

Through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976, Articles 323A and 323B were introduced to specifically provide for the creation of:

• Administrative Tribunals (for service matters of public servants), and
• Other Tribunals (in areas such as taxation, industrial disputes, elections, etc.)

These Articles empower Parliament and State Legislatures to constitute tribunals by law.

Legal Provisions Relating to ‘Tribunal’

The term “tribunal” has been given functional and structural shape through various case laws and is tied to legislation under which such tribunals are constituted. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasized that tribunals derive their adjudicatory powers solely from statute and are limited to the subject matter defined therein. In Bharat Bank v. Employees of Bharat Bank, AIR 1950 SC 188, the Court ruled that for a body to qualify as a “tribunal” under Article 136:

• It must be vested with judicial functions,
• It must have the trappings of a court, and
• It must act in a manner similar to courts of justice.

This interpretation was elaborated in Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 874, where Chief Justice Gajendragadkar clarified the essentials,:

• The body must have the trappings of a court.
• It must be constituted by the State.
• It must be invested with the State’s judicial power.

‘Tribunal’ as Defined in International Instruments

Although no binding international treaty defines “tribunal” in the Indian context, several international frameworks refer to the term:

• Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees a hearing by a “competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” This principle reflects a universal standard that India subscribes to.
• The European Court of Human Rights in multiple rulings under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights interprets “tribunal” as a body that is independent of the executive and possesses the power to deliver binding decisions, reinforcing the structural autonomy tribunals must maintain.

Tribunal as Defined in Official Document(s)

Government publications and official policy reports offer functional definitions:

• The Ministry of Law and Justice Annual Reports describe tribunals as specialised adjudicatory authorities created under statutes for expeditious dispute resolution.
• Parliamentary Standing Committee reports and DoPT guidelines refer to tribunals as institutions with limited subject-matter jurisdiction, distinct from courts but essential to justice delivery.
• The PIB release (2019) on environmental justice defines the National Green Tribunal (NGT) as a specialised body for fast-track disposal of environmental cases, emphasizing the functional necessity of tribunals.

Tribunal as Defined in Official Government Report(s)

First Administrative Reforms Commission (1969)

• The First Administrative Reforms Commission (1969) recommended administrative tribunals to deal with civil service grievances, citing the need for efficiency and specialization.

272nd Law Commission of India Report (2017)

The Law Commission of India, in multiple reports, has provided working definitions and critiques of the tribunal system. In its 272nd Report (2017), it stated:

• "Tribunals are adjudicatory bodies established by statutes for resolving disputes in specialised domains such as taxation, service matters, or environment. While they possess the authority to deliver binding decisions, they operate outside the ordinary judicial hierarchy and must be independent of executive control."

Swaran Singh Committee Report (1976)

Laid the foundational blueprint for the tribunal system in India, resulting in Articles 323A and 323B. The Swaran Singh Committee (1976), to reduce the burden of service cases by public servants on the High Courts, recommended setting up:

• Administrative tribunals to adjudicate on matters related to service conditions

• An all-India appellate tribunal for labour and industrial matters.

• Tribunals for deciding matters of specific sectors.
• That all such tribunal decisions should be subject to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.

The recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee ultimately led to the enactment of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which allowed for tribunals to take their place in the Indian legal system.

Tribunal as Defined in Case Law(s)

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a central role in defining and clarifying the concept of “tribunal”:

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997):

In L. Chandra Kumar, the High Court affirmed ’ supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 over tribunals is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, ensuring tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review.

Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010):

Distinguished between courts and tribunals, clarifying that while both perform adjudicatory functions, tribunals are creatures of statute with limited scope and can include technical experts alongside judges.

Rojer Matthew v. South Indian Bank (2019):

Held that tribunals must be financially independent, and their expenditure should not be routed through sponsoring ministries, to avoid executive influence.

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021):

In the case it was further elaborated that “Though both courts and tribunals exercise judicial power and discharge similar functions, there are certain well-recognised differences between courts and tribunals. They are:

• Courts are established by the State and are entrusted with the State's inherent judicial power for administration of justice in general. Tribunals are established under a statute to adjudicate upon disputes arising under the said statute, or disputes of a specified nature. Therefore, all courts are tribunals. But all tribunals are not courts.
• Courts are exclusively manned by Judges. Tribunals can have a Judge as the sole Member, or can have a combination of a judicial Member and a technical Member who is an “expert” in the field to which the Tribunal relates. Some highly specialised fact-finding tribunals may have only technical Members, but they are rare and are exceptions.
• While courts are governed by detailed statutory procedural rules, in particular the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act, requiring an elaborate procedure in decision making, tribunals generally regulate their own procedure applying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure only where it is required, and without being restricted by the strict rules of the Evidence Act.”

Reiterating the need for structural reform, including the establishment of a National Tribunals Commission to ensure independence and transparency in appointments, service conditions, and oversight.

Types of tribunals

There is the difference between the kinds of tribunals, based on the Constitutional provision invoked to pass the legislation for the tribunal.

Article 323A of the Constitution empowers the Parliament alone to provide for tribunals concerning the recruitment and conditions of service for persons holding any post created or overseen by the government.

Article 323B of the Constitution empowers the appropriate legislature to make laws providing for the adjudication/trial by tribunals of any disputes, complaints, or offence in specified matters, which include – taxes; foreign exchange, import and export across frontiers; industrial and labour disputes; land reform; urban land ceiling; election of legislators; production, procurement, supply and distribution of essential foodstuff.

The current list of tribunals include:

Serial number	Tribunal	Statute establishing tribunal	Appellate Authority
1.	Industrial Tribunal(s)	Industrial Disputes Act, 1947	High Court
2.	Income Tax Appellate Tribunal	Income Tax Act, 1961	High Court
3.	Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal	Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962	High Court
4.	Appellate Tribunal	Section 12 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976	High Court
5.	Central Administrative Tribunalsand State Administrative Tribunals	Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985	Supreme Court
6.	Railway Claims Tribunal	Section 3 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987	High Court
7	Securities Appellate Tribunal	Section 15K of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992	Supreme Court
8.	Debt Recovery Tribunal	Section 3 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993	Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
9.	Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal	Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993	High Court
10.	Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal	Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997	Supreme Court
11.	National Company Law Tribunal	Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013	National Companies Law Appellate Tribunal
12.	National Company Law Appellate Tribunal	Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2013	Supreme Court
13.	National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission	Section 9(c) Consumer Protection Act, 1986	Supreme Court
14.	Appellate Tribunal for Electricity	Section 110 of the Electricity Act, 2003	Supreme Court
15.	Armed Forces Tribunal	Section 4 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007	Supreme Court
16.	National Green Tribunal	Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010	Supreme Court
17.	Resal Estate Appellate Tribunal	Section 43 to Section 58 ofThe Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016	High court

International Experiences

Australia

Tribunals in Australia deal with administrative and civil matters. Much like in India, the Australian tribunal system also aims to provide a simpler and cheaper alternative to review government decisions, as well reduce the burden on the judicial system.

Unlike the Indian tribunal, an Australian tribunal is an executive body (and not a quasi-judicial one independent of the executive), who do not adjudicate the legality of a decision nor exercise any judicial power, but instead exercise “merits review”, i.e., examining the merit of the administrative action. In this manner the separation of powers is maintained within the Australian tribunal system.

Presently, this system consists of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (established in 1975) as a general tribunal to review a range of government decisions, with a very wide jurisdiction of over 400 Acts. Several other tribunals established since then exercising more specific jurisdictions, such as the Equal Opportunity Tribunal (1984), the Workers Rehabilitation and Conciliation Tribunal (1988), the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (1993), as well as tribunals for Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in particular is supported by Court Services Victoria, set up by the Court Services Victoria Act 2014. By providing administrative facilities and services to VCAT, it enhances the judicial independence of the tribunal from the executive.

Canada

In Canada, while the tribunal system is one of the parts composing the greater justice system, it is considered to be distinct from the court system. Tribunals are instead independent, specialised decision-making government authorities and are referred to as quasi-judicial as they engage in fact-finding and have the power to impact the personal rights of people.

There are two levels of administrative tribunals – Federal and Provincial. Known as commissions or boards, they are created by specific federal/provincial legislation (called as “empowering legislation”) and get their powers either from the legislation or indirectly from general laws on tribunals. As these are government authorities/agencies, appointments to tribunals are made by the Order-in-Council, i.e., a formal order by the Governor General backed by the Cabinet or a Committee of the Cabinet.

Tribunals perform a number of functions – from adjudication, making decisions and rules on behalf of federal/provincial governments, recommendations for law reform, regulatory and licensing functions, etc – while having less formal procedures for the same than a court may. Furthermore, Canadian courts can review the legality of tribunals’ decisions, even when legislation does not provide for/prohibits a right of appeal. Tribunals in Canada receive support from the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada (ATSSC), a statutory body handling a number of administrative functions for tribunals – including registry services, case flow management, research services, IT services, human resource management, etc. It is run by a Chief Administrator, appointed by the Governor in Council, with a separate secretariat for each tribunal.

France

In France, special administrative courts – the Ordre administratif – have a general jurisdiction on administrative matters. These administrative courts are separate from judicial (civil and criminal) courts, as well as independent of the civil services. This separation between administrative and judicial courts is important within the French legal system, and in cases of conflict of jurisdiction a tribunal des conflits determines which court is to deal with the matter. It is a three-tiered system, with a court of first instance (tribunal administratif), an appellate court against decisions of the tribunal administratif (Cour administrative d’appel) and a final appellate court – the Conseil d’Etat.

This administrative court system has wide jurisdiction, that includes reviewing administrative decisions by branches of government, direct taxes, employment, municipal elections, etc. However, observers have remarked that such a system would not be viable for India, considering the restriction of appeals and lack of judicial review that was considered rejected in the framing of the Constitution.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom (UK) has a number of tribunals overseeing issues of citizens against the State (social security, immigration, etc) as well as private disputes between persons/organisations (Leasehold Valuation Tribunals for disputes between lessors and lessees, Employment Tribunals for disputes between employees and employers, etc).

Tribunals in the UK fulfil a similar function as in India, distinguished by: (i) the special expertise of the tribunal members; and (ii) flexibility regarding its own procedures. The UK tribunal system has itself developed out of changes recommended by different government committees – the Donoughmore Committee Report (1932); the Franks Committee Report (1957); and the Leggart Committee Report (2001), whose recommendations led to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, 2007.

Presently, there is a two-tiered tribunal system, with a centralised administration of all tribunals by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) under the Ministry of Justice. This system consists of:

• First-tier tribunals, with several chambers for different subject matters. These tribunals were grouped into 9 Divisions, namely Immigration, Social Security and Pensions, Land and Valuation, Financial, Transport, Health and Social Services, Education, Regulatory, and Employment.
• The Upper Tribunal, which hears appeals against the first-tier tribunals.

United States of America

In the United States of America, judicial power cannot be invested in administrative bodies which are not courts. This is owing to a strict adherence to the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary; and thus even the United States Supreme Court does not exercise administrative adjudication. Equally, administrative tribunals can exercise only quasi-judicial power, and not judicial power.

The operation of tribunals is therefore delicate, developed first by the Special Committee on Administrative Law (1933) by the American Bar Association, which led to a government committee – the Attorney General’s Committee (1939). The Attorney General’s Committee suggested procedural reforms that resulted in a statutory code – the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946.

The Act sets down the procedure for administrative rule-making and adjudication by federal government agencies. It also lays down the requirements and procedure for judicial review of such administrative actions. However, these can only be on questions of law and interpretation of statutes, when a person (either an individual or an organisation of any kind) has suffered through such actions. There is also an Administrative Office of US Courts to manage all the administrative functions of the judiciary, but it serves only the judicial branch of the US government and does not aid any administrative tribunals.

Appearance in official databases

While there is no data available on tribunals in the National Judicial Data Grid (as it only provides data on District Courts or on High Courts) or eCourt India Services, most tribunals provides their own data on their websites:

National Company Law Tribunal

The National Company Law Tribunal provides information on cases disposed of, brought and pending before it by the law it is brought under. These include sections under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The data provided is periodic, but there is no archive available to look at previous data to compare it with. The parameters of the data recorded also differ by the law the case is brought under – cases under the Companies Act are measured within a period (from 2016 to 2022) by the total number of cases numbered (i.e., instituted), the total number pending, the total number disposed of, and the percentage of disposal; while cases under the IBC are measured within a period (from 2017 to 2022)  by the total number of cases numbered, the total number pending (both pre and post-admission), the total number disposed of, the total number adjudicated, and the percentage of adjudication. However, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal provides no such data:

A screenshot of the cases under the Companies Act, 2013 as shown on the NCLT website.

A screenshot of the cases brought under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on the NCLT website.

Central Administrative Tribunal

The Central Administrative Tribunal provides the total number of filed, disposed and pending cases along with the number of cases filed today on a dashboard on their website.

The statistical dashboard as seen on the CAT website.

Railway Claims Tribunal

The Railway Claims Tribunal provides on its website the service of a Daily Summary Report, which gives data on all cases heard and adjudicated by the Tribunal on a daily basis. However, it can only provide the data for a period no longer than 31 days.

The Daily Summary Report search function as seen on the RCT website.

The results of the Daily Summary Report search function.

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal provides a number of statistical reports on its website, which include Filed Cases, Pending Cases, and Disposed Cases.

The data results of the search function as seen on the TDSAT website. Available at: https://tdsat.gov.in/Delhi/services/datewisefilingreport.php

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has published data on the total number of new cases, resolved case, and overall pendency from the years of 2000-2021. This information is broken up by each bench of the Tribunal (i.e., each independent location where the tribunal is established and operating), as well as given in aggregate terms.  

Research that engages with 'Tribunals'

Towards a Tribunal Services Agency (IGIDR)

Pratik Datta’s paper on the utility of a Tribunal Services Agency examines the need for the administrative aspects of all tribunals to be handled by a single government agency to ensure tribunals can focus on their judicial functions and thus improve efficiency. It presents analyses of other attempts at such an administrative agency in different countries – the UK, Canada, Australia, and the US; and provides a template for the legal and organisational structure of such an agency for India.

A Framework for the National Tribunals Commission (DAKSH)

DAKSH has written reports on the tribunals system – includes white paper on structural reforms and a National Tribunal Commission for the Indian tribunal system (including a proposed legal and organisational structure for the Commission).

Coalition for the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal in India (DAKSH)

The Coalition for the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal in India (‘GSTAT Coalition India’) convened by DAKSH, has published a joint note on the constitution of GSTAT proposing an institutional structure for state-of-the-art dispute resolution institution.

Measuring court output in the pandemic: evidence from India's largest commercial tribunal

XKDR, a Mumbai-based nonprofit research organisation, has studied the processing of cases in the National Company Law Tribunal during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was done by analysing the daily causelists of the tribunal, and examining the number of hearings taken for cases and their ultimate outcome on an input-output approach. The number of hearings in a day were examined both before and during the pandemic and compared those with the respective disposal rates for each period. XKDR has also done a study on case scheduling by the NCLT during exceptional periods such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This was done by analysing case data through daily causelists across three different periods: pre-lockdown, during the lockdown, and post-lockdown. By examining the procedure for case prioritisation (and de-prioritisation of scheduled cases when “urgent” cases have to be heard immediately), it draws a parallel between this process and the medical triage done by doctors – highlighting the need for consistent, principle-based standard operating procedures for case scheduling, akin to that of medical professionals.

State of the Nation’s Tribunals II (VIDHI)

The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy has a number of reports on the Indian tribunal system: an analysis of the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal; an analysis of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board; and an interim report on structural reforms as well as the need for a National Tribunals Commission.

Challenges

Data

• There is no unified availability of data from the tribunals like there is for the district judiciary or the High Courts. The National Judicial Data Grid at present does not include data drawn from any tribunals, thus presenting an incomplete picture of the overall justice system in the country.
• Several tribunals do not record and make available data beyond causelists or the status of ongoing cases. The few that do have been noted in the earlier section “Appearance in Official Databases”. Unlike High Courts, there is no data published or updated on the websites of most tribunals on the pendency of cases before them.
• There is a distributed hierarchy amongst the tribunals themselves, as tribunals are administered (i.e., given funds, infrastructure, and staff for functioning) by sponsoring ministries. There are therefore no uniform standards for data amongst the tribunals – some record data differently from others, while several do not publish their data at all.

Way Ahead

The National Tribunal Commission has been recommended by many as a critical reform to aid tribunal pendency and functioning. A National Tribunal Commission (NTC) or Agency is thought to be able to increase the independence, accountability, uniformity, accessibility and efficiency of tribunals.

Suggestions range from having the NTC being a profit-making company charging fees to a statutory body deducting its expenses from the Consolidated Fund of India. An NTC could perform functions as critical as:

• Recruitment for tribunal membership
• Budgeting
• Administrative oversight
• Providing administrative support, infrastructure (physical and technological)
• Improvement, rationalisation and streamlining of tribunal processes and procedures

The composition of the NTC Board has been suggested as being a mix of judicial members – which have been suggested to be more than half of the total strength of the Board, thus orienting it towards its judicial functions – and some executive members nominated by the Central government.

Since the 1980s, a number of tribunals have been established under different Acts. However, the Finance Act, 2017 reduced the number of tribunals, and reorganised them by merging tribunals with similar functions together. This brought the total number of tribunals in the country to 19 from 26. Tribunals were to be further reduced with the passing of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021. The bill did not pass as it remained pending at the end of the session, and thus an ordinance with similar provisions was promulgated in April 2021. However, the ordinance was challenged in the Supreme Court, and certain provisions eventually struck down by the Court. The ordinance was effectively replaced by the passing of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 on August 3 2021. After the passing of the Act, there are 16 tribunals currently functioning in India.

There have been calls for further reform – in both urgent needs such as administrative support and vacancies (Shah, 2021); and structural reform in the shape of an independent agency to oversee tribunals. From the Supreme Court, this can be seen in a string of judgements starting from L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, to Union of India v. R. Gandhi and Rojer Matthew v. South Indian Bank Limited. These have culminated in the recommendation of a National Tribunals Commission as part of structural reforms for tribunals in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, which various experts have also argued in favour of – both public and private.

Synonymous terms

Tribunals are sometimes also referred to as “administrative tribunals”, but this is considered to be misleading and a misnomer by academics for the reasons that:

• Every tribunal is created by an Act passed by the legislature, and not by the Government.
• Decisions of tribunals are of a judicial nature rather than administrative, as it decides legal questions.
• Several tribunals deal with disputes that do not involve the Government, such as the Industrial Tribunal.
• Tribunals are independent, not in any way subject to administrative interference in their deciding a particular case.