Tribunals, Lok Adalats and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Why tribunals?

The original Constitution had no provision for tribunals. The 42nd Amendment (1976), on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee, added Part XIV-A with two Articles:

• Article 323A – administrative tribunals for disputes about recruitment and conditions of service of persons in public services of the Centre, states, local bodies and public corporations. Only Parliament can make such laws.
• Article 323B – tribunals for other matters: taxation; foreign exchange and import–export; industrial and labour disputes; land reforms; ceiling on urban property; elections to Parliament and state legislatures; food stuffs; rent and tenancy rights. Both Parliament and state legislatures can create these, within their legislative competence.

Tribunals are expected to provide speedy, cheap and specialised justice, reduce the burden on regular courts and bring technical expertise (through technical members) to complex areas.

Administrative tribunals

Parliament passed the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was set up in 1985 – with a principal bench in Delhi and benches across the country. It handles service matters of central government employees, all-India services and employees of notified bodies. State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) can be set up by the Centre on a state's request; some states have later abolished theirs (Tamil Nadu in 2006, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha in 2019).

CAT follows the principles of natural justice, not the Code of Civil Procedure, and an applicant may appear in person. Originally, appeals from CAT went only to the Supreme Court (Article 323A allowed exclusion of High Courts' jurisdiction). In L. Chandra Kumar (1997) the Court held that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure, so tribunal decisions must be challenged first before a division bench of the High Court, and tribunals act only as courts of first instance.

Other important tribunals

• National Green Tribunal (NGT) – NGT Act, 2010; environmental cases, including enforcement of legal rights relating to the environment; appeals to the Supreme Court; disposes cases within six months as far as possible.
• National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and NCLAT – Companies Act, 2013; also the adjudicating authorities under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
• Armed Forces Tribunal – 2007 Act; service matters and court-martial appeals of the armed forces.
• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT, 1941) – the oldest tribunal; Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT); GST Appellate Tribunal (constituted under the CGST Act, its principal bench in Delhi).
• Securities Appellate Tribunal, Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunals, Railway Claims Tribunal and Industrial Tribunals.

Tribunalisation – concerns and reforms

Critics have raised concerns about independence (members appointed and serviced by the very ministries whose decisions they review), short tenures and re-appointment, vacancies, a lack of uniform qualifications, and tribunals becoming an extra layer of litigation rather than a substitute. Key judgments: R. Gandhi (2010) on NCLT, Madras Bar Association cases (2014, 2020, 2021) on composition, tenure and selection, and Rojer Mathew (2019) which struck down the Tribunal rules made under the Finance Act 2017.

The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished several appellate tribunals – including the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal, the Airport Appellate Tribunal, the Authority for Advance Rulings and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board – transferring their functions to High Courts or other bodies; it fixed a four-year tenure and age limits for members and provided for search-cum-selection committees. In Madras Bar Association (2025) the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of this Act (such as the four-year tenure and minimum age of 50) as reiterating provisions it had earlier invalidated, and directed the Centre to set up a National Tribunals Commission. The Court has repeatedly recommended such a Commission to supervise appointments, functioning and administration.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

ADR refers to methods of resolving disputes outside regular courts. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (inserted in 1999, effective 2002) lists five methods: arbitration, conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement (including through Lok Adalats). Article 39A (equal justice and free legal aid) provides the constitutional basis for legal aid and Lok Adalats.

Arbitration – a neutral arbitrator gives a binding award; governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (based on the UNCITRAL Model Law), amended in 2015, 2019 and 2021 to make India arbitration-friendly (time limits, the Arbitration Council of India, limits on court interference). Institutional arbitration is promoted through the India International Arbitration Centre (2019 Act).

Conciliation – a conciliator assists parties to reach a settlement, which, once signed, has the effect of an arbitral award.

Mediation – a neutral mediator helps parties reach a voluntary settlement. The Mediation Act, 2023 provides for pre-litigation mediation (voluntary), a Mediation Council of India, online mediation and community mediation; settlement agreements are enforceable like court decrees.

Lok Adalats ("people's courts") – the first was held in Gujarat in 1982. They received statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Features:

• They decide disputes pending in courts or at the pre-litigation stage, through compromise or settlement.
• No court fee is payable; if a case already filed is settled, the court fee is refunded.
• The award is deemed a decree of a civil court, final and binding, and no appeal lies against it.
• They have no jurisdiction over non-compoundable offences.
• Permanent Lok Adalats (2002 amendment) deal with public utility services (transport, postal, telecom, power, water, hospitals, insurance) with a pecuniary limit of ₹1 crore; they can decide on merits if conciliation fails.
• National Lok Adalats are held on a single day across the country, organised by NALSA, and settle lakhs of cases each time.

Legal services institutions: NALSA (patron-in-chief: the Chief Justice of India; executive chairman: the senior-most judge after the CJI), State Legal Services Authorities (patron-in-chief: Chief Justice of the High Court), District Legal Services Authorities (chaired by the District Judge) and Taluk Committees. Free legal aid is available to women and children, SCs and STs, victims of trafficking, persons with disabilities, industrial workmen, persons in custody, victims of disasters, and others below an income ceiling.

Nyaya Bandhu (pro bono legal services) and Tele-Law (legal advice through Common Service Centres) are recent government initiatives.

Practice: Mains question

*Tribunals were meant to reduce the burden on courts but have become a parallel system with problems of their own. Discuss. (250 words)* Outline the rationale (Arts 323A and 323B), the problems (independence, vacancies, appeals, uniformity), judicial interventions (L. Chandra Kumar, Madras Bar Association, Rojer Mathew), the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 and the 2025 ruling, and suggest a National Tribunals Commission and rationalisation of tribunals.

Common traps

• Articles 323A and 323B were added by the 42nd Amendment; 323A tribunals only by Parliament.
• After L. Chandra Kumar, appeals from tribunals go first to a High Court division bench.
• No appeal lies against a Lok Adalat award; it is deemed a civil court decree.
• The first Lok Adalat was held in Gujarat (1982); statutory status came in 1987.