Q9.How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India.

Tribunals in India are quasi-judicial bodies established to provide specialized, speedy, and cost-effective justice in specific areas, reducing the burden on ordinary courts.

Extent of Curtailment of Ordinary Courts' Jurisdiction

Tribunals do curtail ordinary courts' jurisdiction by diverting specific cases (e.g., administrative, tax, environmental), aiming for specialized and expeditious resolution. This reduces judicial caseload. However, this curtailment is not absolute. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) affirmed that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court over tribunal decisions is part of the basic structure. Tribunals thus supplement, rather than substitute, the higher judiciary, preserving the right to approach superior courts.

Constitutional Validity and Competency of Tribunals

The constitutional validity of tribunals is rooted in Articles 323A (Administrative Tribunals) and 323B (Other Tribunals), inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.

• Advantages: Specialization, cost-effectiveness, and reduction of judicial backlog.
• Concerns: Independence (executive interference in appointments), quality of members, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of uniform procedures.

While tribunals effectively curtail initial jurisdiction for specialized matters, their constitutional validity and competency depend on upholding judicial independence and the basic structure doctrine. Reforms in appointments, selection, and infrastructure are crucial to enhance their role as efficient, impartial pillars of justice, complementing the higher judiciary.