Tribunals in India: Articles 323A and 323B, Key Tribunals, Independence Concerns and the 2021 Reforms Act (UPSC Notes + PYQs)

Background: how tribunals entered the Constitution

Tribunals existed in India before 1976, for instance the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set up in 1941. But they received constitutional status only through the 42nd Amendment (1976), which added Part XIV-A with Articles 323A and 323B. The Swaran Singh Committee had recommended them to reduce the load on High Courts, especially in service and tax matters. The amendment also tried to shut out High Court review of tribunal decisions, a move later reversed by the Supreme Court. Today India has a wide range of bodies, from the Central Administrative Tribunal to the National Green Tribunal and the Armed Forces Tribunal. Some sit under the two Articles; many are created by ordinary laws. A tribunal is a quasi-judicial body: it decides disputes like a court but is usually not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, follows natural justice, and often has both judicial and technical members.

Why tribunals

Courts were clogged, and some disputes need technical knowledge a generalist judge may lack. Tribunals were meant to be cheaper, quicker and expert. In practice many have faced vacancies and questions about independence.

323A vs 323B

Many tribunals are created by ordinary statutes outside these Articles, such as the National Green Tribunal (2010), NCLT and NCLAT (2016).

Key cases

• L. Chandra Kumar (1997): exclusion of High Court jurisdiction is invalid; review under Articles 226/227 and 32 is basic structure.
• Madras Bar Association cases (2010, 2014, 2020, 2021): on qualifications, tenure and the dominance of the executive in selection.

The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

It abolished several appellate tribunals (such as the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal) and moved their work to High Courts, and set a four-year tenure and search-cum-selection committees. In November 2025 the Supreme Court (Madras Bar Association line of cases) struck down key parts of the Act for repeating provisions it had earlier invalidated, such as the four-year tenure and the minimum age of 50.

Tribunals vs courts

The last two rows explain most of the litigation. A tribunal that is staffed, funded and serviced by the very ministry whose orders it judges cannot easily appear independent, which is why the Supreme Court has repeatedly insisted on judicial dominance in selection and on a single independent body to administer tribunals.

Tribunals in Prelims: common traps

Remember that only Parliament can create tribunals under Article 323A, while both Parliament and State legislatures can create them under 323B for their own subjects. The National Green Tribunal, NCLT and Armed Forces Tribunal are statutory bodies, not created under Part XIV-A. A frequent trap is to say tribunals are outside judicial review; after L. Chandra Kumar, every tribunal order can be taken to a High Court division bench.

Reform agenda

A National Tribunals Commission to oversee appointments and administration, as the Supreme Court has suggested; parent ministry should not control the tribunal that hears cases against it; filling vacancies on time.

Important tribunals at a glance

The November 2025 judgment

On 19 November 2025, in Madras Bar Association v Union of India, a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 largely reproduced the ordinance the Court had struck down in July 2021. Calling this an impermissible “legislative override” of binding judgments, it struck down provisions such as the four-year tenure and the minimum age of 50 for appointment. It directed the Centre to set up a National Tribunals Commission within four months as a structural safeguard for independence, and held that the principles of its earlier Madras Bar Association rulings would govern appointments and service conditions until a compliant law is made. The case shows the separation of powers at work: Parliament may legislate on tribunals, but it cannot simply re-enact what the Court has declared unconstitutional without removing the basis of that ruling.

Assessment for Mains

• Gains: specialised benches, technical members and faster disposal in areas such as company law and environment; NGT has shaped environmental law through polluter-pays orders.
• Problems: large vacancies, short tenures that deter good lawyers, retired officers dominating benches, executive control over budgets and staff, and appeals that still end up in High Courts and the Supreme Court, so delay simply moves.
• Rationalisation: abolishing tribunals with little work saves money but shifts cases back to already burdened High Courts unless they get more benches.
• Reform: an independent commission, uniform service conditions, five-year terms, judicial members in a majority in selection, and online filing.

Tribunals: UPSC angle

Tribunals UPSC PYQs (Prelims)

Questions UPSC has actually asked, from the official papers. Pick an option to check yourself.

Mains PYQs on this topic

Questions from the official UPSC Mains papers (2023-2026 in the Battle IAS Mains bank), newest first. Each links to a model answer.

1. UPSC Mains 2025 · GS Paper II · Q2 · 10 marks

   Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.

   Model answer and approach

Quick quiz

FAQs

Study next: Collegium system · Judicial review · Environmental Impact Assessment

Spotted an error? Tell us. We correct within 48 hours.

Image: Subhashish Panigrahi, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0