CJI Flags Concern Over Non-Judicial Members in Tribunals Avoiding Verdicts Against Govt.
Context
At the 10th All India Conference of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), 2025, Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai highlighted issues concerning judicial conduct and functioning of tribunals.
He flagged both misconduct by some judges and hesitation of non-judicial members in tribunals to rule against the government.
Key Observations by CJI
Tribunal Independence
Non-judicial members (often from administrative backgrounds) tend to avoid passing orders against the government.
This undermines the very purpose of tribunals as independent adjudicatory bodies.
Judicial Humility & Responsibility
Judges and tribunal members wield immense power but must exercise it with humility and responsibility.
Courts exist for citizens, not for bureaucratic or personal authority.
Conduct Towards Lawyers
Referred to a recent case where a High Court judge browbeat a young lawyer into unconsciousness.
Emphasized that judges and lawyers are like two wheels of the golden chariot of justice—neither superior nor inferior.
Criticized the ill-treatment of even senior lawyers by some judges.
Tribunal Functioning Issues
While tribunals show commendable disposal rates, pendency remains a major concern.
Multiplicity of appeals from tribunal decisions further delays justice.
Broader Significance
Judicial Accountability: Highlights need for ethical standards, especially in tribunals where executive and judicial functions intersect.
Tribunalisation of Justice Debate: Raises concerns over the independence of tribunals from government influence, a matter repeatedly flagged in Supreme Court judgments (e.g., L. Chandra Kumar case, 1997).
Public Trust in Judiciary: Remarks come at a time when judicial conduct and pendency are central to debates on judicial reforms.
Tribunal System in India
Constitutional & Legal Basis
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Articles 323A & 323B.
Article 323A: Parliament may establish Administrative Tribunals (Central & State) for service matters of public servants.
Article 323B: Parliament & State legislatures may set up tribunals for subjects like taxation, land reforms, labour, foreign exchange, elections, etc.
Articles 323A & 323B empowered legislatures to exclude jurisdiction of courts, but L. Chandra Kumar case (1997) restored judicial review of HC & SC as part of basic structure.
Parliament enacted Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, creating Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs).
Appointment & Removal of Members
Appointment:
Earlier, appointment process dominated by Executive.
As per SC guidelines (Madras Bar Association 2020, 2021 cases):
Selection Committee composition:
CJI or nominee (casting vote).
Presiding officer / Retired SC Judge / CJ of HC (if presiding officer not judicial member).
Law Secretary (Govt. of India).
Secretary of a non-parent ministry.
Parent ministry representative (without vote).
Judicial members: Only those eligible to be appointed as HC judges.
Technical members: Must have domain expertise; cannot outnumber judicial members.
Tenure & Service Conditions:
Chairperson: up to 70 years.
Members: up to 67 years.
Minimum tenure: 5 years (struck down earlier 4-year limit in 2021).
Short tenure + reappointment criticized as undermining independence.
Removal:
Can be done only on grounds of misbehavior or incapacity.
Requires inquiry by a Judge of SC, as per Tribunals Reforms Act.
Rojer Mathew case (2019) held executive-controlled removal unconstitutional.
Key Supreme Court Judgments
Case | Principle Laid Down |
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. UoI (1986) | Tribunals as substitutes to HCs are valid if equally effective. Appointments must involve judiciary. |
L. Chandra Kumar v. UoI (1997) | Tribunals are supplementary, not substitutes. Judicial review of HC/SC cannot be ousted. |
R. Gandhi v. UoI (2010) | Technical members not needed if jurisdiction shifted only for expeditious disposal. Judicial members must dominate. |
Madras Bar Association v. UoI (2014, 2020, 2021) | Administrative control must be with Law Ministry, not parent ministry. Struck down short tenure (4 years), minimum age (50 years). Favoured National Tribunals Commission (NTC). |
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019) | Judicial functions cannot be performed by technical members. Executive cannot have removal powers. Uniform retirement age required. |
Issues & Challenges
Independence: Executive dominance in appointment, tenure, and funding.
Pendency: Despite purpose of reducing backlog, many tribunals face heavy caseload (e.g., Armed Forces Tribunal: 18,829 pending cases in 2021).
Multiplicity of appeals: Several tribunal orders challenged in HCs & SC → delays.
Vacancies: Many tribunals dysfunctional due to long-pending appointments.
No National Tribunals Commission: Despite SC directions, NTC yet to be established.
Reforms Suggested
Establish National Tribunals Commission (NTC) for appointments, administration, finances.
Ensure judicial dominance in selection committees.
Uniform tenure & retirement age across tribunals.
Adequate staffing & infrastructure to tackle pendency.
Judicial Impact Assessments before abolishing/merging tribunals (ignored in 2017 & 2021 reforms).
Recent developments
CJI B.R. Gavai (2025): highlighted that non-judicial tribunal members often avoid rulings against govt., undermining independence.
Debate on tribunalisation of justice continues—balance needed between expertise & judicial independence.
Pendency in tribunals remains high; recent abolition of some tribunals (2021) has further burdened HCs.