Examine if Role of Tribunals Needs Relook, Supreme Court Tells Law Commission

At a time when the Ministry of Law and Justice has been looking at merging tribunals in India, a two-judge Supreme Court bench has questioned the efficiency of these tribunals in an August 10 verdict.

Concerned over the piling up of cases against orders by various tribunals, the judges observed that Supreme Court cannot be turned into a “mere court of appeal”, and the court's docket needs to be reduced as commercial cases are clogging the apex court.

The court was adjudicating an appeal by the Gujarat government against a decision of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. The case relates to a commercial dispute over power purchase agreement between Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Essar Power Ltd. The Supreme Court granted relief to Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam by setting aside the earlier order by the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity that ruled in favour of Essar Power.

Disagreeing with APTEL's ruling and the manner in which the case was decided, the bench comprising Justice Adarsh K Goel and Justice Anil R Dave gave several observations that questioned the overall scope of tribunals in the country.

In a bid to clarify whether the apex court should hear commercial disputes that lack substantial question of law, the two-judge bench has asked the Law Commission to deliberate and submit a report within a year.

The court observed that “apart from desirability, constitutionality of such (tribunals) provisions may need to be gone into,” and framed the following questions:

1. Whether all commercial disputes should be heard by the Supreme Court or can be resolved at lower forums.

2 Whether high courts should be bypassed and direct appeals from tribunals should reach the Supreme Court.

3. Whether changes are required in the appointment process and duration of tribunals members and chairpersons.

4. Whether commercial disputes that are not of pubic or national importance should take up Supreme Court's time.

The judges have observed that the short tenure of tribunals' chairpersons and members can come in the way of access to justice. “Access to justice may not be, thus, available with the convenience with which it is available when jurisdiction is with the local civil courts sought to be substituted. Such provisions may need review in larger public interest and for providing access to justice,” the judgment reads.

The court has referred the question on functioning of tribunals to a larger bench comprising three judges, which will be taken up for consideration in November 2017.