SC notice to Centre on bringing tribunals under one ministry

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN Jul 25, 2012, 02.44AM IST

Litany of tribunals set up under diverse ministries to deal with a slew of issues — ranging from environment to income tax — has resulted in lack of uniformity in their functioning, so much so that members appointed to decide cases were not qualified to practice in them.

A Supreme Court bench of Justices A K Patnaik and Madan Lokur issued notice to the Centre — on the basis of a PIL filed by the Madras Bar Association — that gave a direction to the Union government to bring all tribunals under the administrative aegis of the ministry of law and justice.

The PIL filed through advocate Nikhil Nayyar said Competition Commission of India (CCI) and its Appellate tribunal along with Company Law Board came under the ministry of corporate affairs, while Copyright Board functioned under the HRD ministry.

"Intellectual Property Appellate Board was under the ministry of industry and commerce, while Customs, Excise and Service Appellate Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal and its Appellate Tribunal, and Securities Appellate Tribunal were set up under the aegis of the ministry of finance," it said.

Since the tribunals were not set up under one administrative control, there had been great diversity in the functioning of these grievance redressal forums, it said.

"First, the qualification of members (of these tribunals and boards) is not uniform. In many tribunals, 'administrative' or 'technical' members do not even require a law degree. This has resulted in a curious situation where 95% of the 'technical' members will not be allowed to practice before the tribunal, but will be able to sit on its bench," senior advocate Arvind Datar said arguing for the petitioner.

The retirement age of the members were also not uniform, it said and complained that the administrative ministries have adopted a step-motherly treatment to these tribunals as far as providing infrastructure and staff was concerned.

Besides, the government had never carried out judicial impact assessment while enacting a new statute resulting in defeating the purpose of creating tribunals, which was to reduce pendency.

The apex court had recently taken exception to the manner in which government had treated the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which was woefully short of office space, staff and residential accommodations. Peeved over lack of basic amenities, two judicial members of NGT resigned from their posts.

The PIL said that government had paid scant regard to two judgements of the apex court - the 2010 judgement in R Gandhi case and 1997 judgement in L Chandra Kumar case - that mandated all tribunals be brought under the aegis of the ministry of law and justice.