How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India. (15) (250 words)

Tribunals were created to provide specialised, accessible and speedy adjudication, but their design can affect the jurisdiction and independence of constitutional courts.

• Tribunals may exercise original jurisdiction in specialised fields and replace ordinary court routes where legislation validly so provides.
• They do not oust judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 or by the Supreme Court under Article 136.
• L. Chandra Kumar therefore preserves constitutional courts as guardians of legality, while requiring tribunal decisions to remain reviewable.

Reforms should follow the principles of judicial independence, procedural fairness, affordability and reasoned orders. Selection by an independent mechanism, uniform service conditions and periodic performance review can improve tribunals without converting them into executive departments or inaccessible parallel courts.

Regular reporting to the legislature, public disclosure of reasons and accessible remedies would make the arrangement durable and reduce needless institutional confrontation.

• Articles 323A and 323B authorise Parliament and legislatures to establish specified tribunals, but competence is subject to basic structure and separation of powers.
• Independence requires secure tenure, transparent appointments, adequate infrastructure and protection from executive dominance.
• Tribunalisation is legitimate when it supplies expertise and efficiency; it becomes constitutionally suspect when it weakens judicial review, access or impartial adjudication.

tribunals; Articles 323A-323B; judicial review; L. Chandra Kumar; separation of powers