2018 (5) TMI 726 - SC - Indian Laws

Judgment advocates tribunal system overhaul for efficient justice: independence, qualifications, public accessibility crucial.

Rojer Mathew Versus South Indian Bank Limited And ORS.

Rojer Mathew Versus South Indian Bank Limited And ORS. - 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 129 (SC) Issues Involved:1. Restructuring of Tribunal System2. Independence of Judiciary and Separation of Powers3. Appointment and Qualifications of Tribunal Members4. Accessibility and Efficiency of Tribunals5. Oversight and Monitoring of TribunalsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Restructuring of Tribunal System:The judgment addresses the need for restructuring the tribunal system in light of the constitutional scheme and expert studies. The concept of tribunals was introduced to decongest the court system and provide speedy and inexpensive justice. The functioning of tribunals must be reviewed to ensure they deliver quality justice efficiently.2. Independence of Judiciary and Separation of Powers:The court emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the separation of powers in the establishment and functioning of tribunals. It referenced several cases, including R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993), which highlighted the necessity for tribunal personnel to have legal expertise, judicial experience, and legal training. The independence of the judiciary is crucial for fair justice, and tribunals must be as effective as courts to maintain public faith.3. Appointment and Qualifications of Tribunal Members:The judgment discusses the qualifications and appointment procedures for tribunal members. In L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997), it was noted that tribunals had not met public expectations due to issues like short tenures and lack of judicial experience among members. The court suggested that non-judicial members should have judicial experience, and the appointment process should ensure independence. The Union of India vs. R. Gandhi (2010) case stressed that tribunals exercising judicial power must possess the independence and capacity associated with courts, and technical members should only be included when specialized knowledge is essential.4. Accessibility and Efficiency of Tribunals:The court highlighted the need for tribunals to be accessible to the public. In Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (2014), it was observed that tribunals should not be centralized in one location, as this limits access to justice. The court suggested setting up Access to Justice Facilitation Centres (AJFCs) to enhance accessibility, particularly for those in remote areas. The efficiency of tribunals was also questioned, with the court noting that the assumption of tribunals being more efficient than courts was not based on comprehensive data.5. Oversight and Monitoring of Tribunals:The judgment calls for an independent oversight body to monitor the functioning of tribunals. The Law Commission's 272nd Report recommended restructuring tribunals to avoid direct appeals to the Supreme Court and ensure that tribunal members' appointment, eligibility, tenure, and privileges are on par with those of court judges. The court broadly approved the concept of an effective and autonomous oversight body, suggesting the formation of a National Tribunal Commission (NTC) to oversee central tribunals and similar bodies for state tribunals. The NTC would handle appointments, removals, and performance reviews of tribunal members.Conclusion:The court concluded that the issues of creating regular cadres for tribunals, setting up an autonomous oversight body, amending the scheme of direct appeals to the Supreme Court, and making tribunal benches accessible at convenient locations require urgent attention. A committee, including a retired Supreme Court judge, should be set up to interact with stakeholders and suggest a mechanism consistent with the constitutional scheme and expert recommendations. The matter was listed for further consideration on 10th May 2018.