On Saturday, the Supreme Court clarified that the Tribunal being a quasi-judicial body, working under strict parameters cannot direct the government to make the Policy.
A bench held by two Justices, A.S Oka and Sanjay Karol stated that the tribunal cannot direct the government to make any policy or scheme.
“It cannot direct those responsible for making policy, to make a policy in a particular manner,” a bench of Justices A.S Oka and Sanjay Karol held.
The Tribunal System of India:
The tribunal is an institution that is established for quasi-judicial duties. Their objective is to reduce the caseload of the judiciary or allocate an expert related to technical matters.
Under Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian constitution, that allows, tribunals can be established for specific purposes.
In addition, the tribunals work under the Supreme Court, and they settle on various administrative and tax-related issues, including the Armed Forces Tribunal, National Green Tribunal and thirteen other tribunals.
Key Developments in the Tribunal System:
Since the 1980s, various tribunals have been established under different Acts, including the Central Administrative Tribunal for administrative matters, an Appellate Tribunal to challenge the Central Film Certification, the Securities Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals against the decision of financial sectors, and an Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to hear tariff issues.
However, in 2017, the Finance Act reorganized the tribunal system by merging it with similar functions of another tribunal. For this, the number of tribunals was reduced from 26 to 19. Then, the power was assigned to the Central government to make Rules regarding the qualifications, removal, terms and conditions of services for the chairperson and members of tribunals.
In 2021, the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Condition of Service) Bill, 2021 was introduced in the Lok Sabha in February, with the abolition of nine tribunals and transferring their functions to the existing judicial bodies (High Court).
Discussion on Whether AFT Directed the Govt to Frame Policy to Fill the Post of Air Marshal:
The bench of Justices was dealing with the question of whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) could have directed the government to frame the Policy to fill up the post of Judge Advocate General (Air Marshal).
However, it has been observed that a court cannot direct the government to make legislation or policy as it involves the intricacies of separation of powers.
The AFT, having the adjudicating powers related to the matters of armed forces personnel, is not a developed court.
Justice Karol from the bench noted that the AFT is not vested with the powers of the Supreme Court and High Court but with the Civil Court.
Moreover, policy-making involves the balancing of various things, like resource allocations, national security and political feasibility. That’s why courts generally do not delve into these complex matters and prefer it to the government.
Both the Justices even stated through their judgement that the creation or sanction of any policy regarding the service of the defence personnel was the “sole prerogative of the govt”.
Implications:
The tribunals need to be more cautious and stay within their boundaries while dealing with cases that are related to policy issues, and focus more on individual disputes.
Moreover, the ruling might prompt discussion about revisiting the mandates and jurisdiction of tribunals to ensure the separation of powers and prevent the ambiguity between interpreting the existing policy and creating a new policy. This will help to create a more stable and balanced system.
Comments 1