Rajveer Singh Sachdev and Shivam Gupta
I. Introduction
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, recently said, “Mr. Attorney, Tribunals are your (Centre) creation, and they have become your headache. They are a headache for you (Centre) and a liability for us. They are a liability for us because of the kind of orders they pass, the way they function, and the challenges that come before us. Thanks to the legislative regime, we have created a no-man’s land; they (Tribunals) are not accountable to the judiciary and not accountable to anyone on earth.” This remark regarding the functioning of tribunals reflects deeper institutional anxiety as bodies that were created to reduce the burdens on the court are being perceived as administratively fragile, legally contested, and structurally unaccountable.
II. Main Issues
A. Lack of proper structure
One of the most perpetual criticisms of tribunals is that of their institutional ambiguity. Being a quasi-judicial body, they neither fall under the regular judicial hierarchy nor are entirely accountable to the executive branch. As reiterated by SC, tribunals perform functions judicial in nature, therefore must maintain a standard of independence comparable to the court. However, in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2010, there being no clear supervisory structure and consistent appointment mechanisms has often resulted in disoriented governance of tribunals as they discharge core judicial functions; and further in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2025, their appointment process, tenure, administrative control must safeguard judicial independence and institutional integrity. This structural imbalance was captured by CJI Surya Kant, who remarked that Tribunals have increasingly become a no-man’s land.
B. Outsourcing by Technical Members
Another institutional concern which has been highlighted is alleged outsourcing of judgements written by technical members. Writing a judicial order is a core exercise of judicial authority that requires application of judicial mind. When the same is delegated to external individuals it not only undermines the authenticity and accountability but also puts a question on the legitimacy of the tribunal.
As the issue came under scrutiny of the Supreme Court, where CJI also noted that certain technical members are not drafting judgments themselves, instead outsourcing them. Expressing serious concerns, the court said that these types of practices undermine the integrity of the tribunal, further contributing to the perception of tribunals as ‘liability’ instead of operating as an institution for swift dispute resolution. This practice undermines the doctrine of reasoned decision making, which is an essential part of the concept of procedural fairness under Article 14.
It is to be further seen that in a recent development before the Gujarat High Court, an issue of reliance on AI-generated or non-existent judicial precedents to pass an order by a tribunal was seen, flagging a troubling trend. These concerns highlight a deeper structural problem with tribunal adjudication. The resulting orders were technical members relying on external drafting and unverified technological tools without independent, reasonable, and procedural application of mind under the rule of law. This represents a procedural flaw and a constitutional defect in the system of Tribunals.
C. Increasing burden of courts, not reducing it
The tribunals were set up under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Indian Constitution to reduce the burden of the courts to handle specialised areas of law like tax, company law, environmental law, etc., but instead of reducing the burden of courts, they are putting more burden on the courts.
It was held in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India, 1997, the appeal for a judgment given by the tribunal will first go to the High Court, and then to the Supreme Court. Even after a tribunal decides a case, mostly a writ petition is filed under Article 226, or to supreme court under Article 136. This reaffirms the role of the tribunal as supplementary to the High Court, not a direct Substitute of the High Court. The Tribunals were treated as effective substitutes of High courts. The doctrinal shift of the Tribunal’s role from “Substitute” to “Supplementary” is one of the main reasons for the overflow of cases in the high court and the downgrade of the effectiveness of the tribunals. This just ends up adding another layer of litigation instead of reducing the burden and time.
As discussed earlier, a lack of quality in the judgments by the tribunals ends up making the courts intervene or ends up putting the burden on them by means of an appeal. The lack of a proper administrative structure of the tribunal leads to delays in delivering judgments and having unfilled positions. This leads to people avoiding tribunals and approaching the courts, hence burdening the courts. One of the main reasons for the establishment of tribunals was for speedy justice, which it has failed to provide.
III. Suggestions
The tribunals should have a proper, independent judicial body supervising them, which will help in reducing the structural ambiguity and unaccountability of the Tribunals. Furthermore, a proper mechanism for filling vacancies, security of service conditions, and fixed tenure should be ensured for the proper functioning of the Tribunal.
A proper prohibition should be implemented on the outsourcing of judgment. The writing of judgment is a core function of Article 14, and any person violating it should be given proper punishment. Guidelines for using Artificial Intelligence in the aiding of judgements should be introduced, but it should be ensured that the application of the human mind is primary, and AI should be used only to help and make the process faster.
The tribunal members, especially the technical members, should meet rigorous qualification criteria, and regular check-ups should be done by an independent judicial body, ensuring proper functioning of tribunals and the authenticity of judgments being given. The issue of Tribunals only in a supplementary role can be dealt with by allowing appeals to the High Courts only in case of Substantive questions of Law or if there is injustice on the face of it.
Further, Australia sets an example of structured administrative review system whereby factual findings attained finality and questions of law were appealable. This institutional design not only stopped repeated factual considerations in the appeal process but also ensured higher courts functioned primarily as supervisors of legality. As for India, it poses a great reform possibility whereby appeals from tribunals can be restricted to “substantial question of law” which will help to fulfil the purpose both ways and keeping the checks on substantial question of laws being dealt by tribunals, thereby improving efficiency within the broader judicial delivery system
IV. Conclusion
The tribunals were introduced under Article 323A and 323B as Institutions for providing effective justice in a short duration of time and being specialised in specific laws like Environmental law, Tax law, Administration, etc. However, instead of providing fast and effective judgments, they have failed to provide appropriate justice due to structural defects and uncertainty in their administration.
Further, the role of Tribunals from “Substitutes” of High courts to a “Supplementary ” one has significantly affected their roles. It has resulted in making Tribunals just another layer of litigation, increasing the burden on High Courts, instead of reducing it.
The concept of Tribunals is not wrong, but its lack of proper implementation and uncertain structure has caused it to be inefficient. With proper reforms and a proper system, the system of Tribunals will be able to greatly reduce the burden of High Courts while providing fast and specialised judgements. As further, in the current scenario there is no firm update on commission which was said to be set up within the frame of 4 months as directed by the Supreme court to the union Government.
Unless proper procedures and system is not implemented, the tribunal will keep being in the “No Man’s Land,” as quoted by the CJI, functioning neither as a “Substitutes” nor as a “Supplementary” but as an institution that complicates the Legal system.
Rajveer Singh and Shivam Gupta are fourth-year students at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala.
NUALS Law Journal 