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.
Question source: clearias.com
Write a timed answer in the appCurrent affairs to use in your answer
Centre issues rules creating a National Tribunals Commission to select tribunal members · 3 October 2026 · Answers it directly · use it in the body
Use it to show that tribunals are constitutionally valid but cannot oust judicial review, and that courts have repeatedly policed executive control over them, most recently leading to the National Tribunals Commission.
- Articles 323A and 323B, added by the 42nd Amendment of 1976, allow tribunals for specialised disputes such as service matters, tax, company law and environment.
- L. Chandra Kumar (1997), a seven-judge bench, held High Court and Supreme Court judicial review part of the basic structure, so a law cannot exclude High Court jurisdiction without an alternative arrangement.
- On 19 November 2025 the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 for violating separation of powers and judicial independence, leading to NTC Rules dated 30 September 2026.
Also related
- Justice Nagarathna: family disputes need mediation and adjudication working together
The family court debate is the same question from another angle: specialised or alternative forums can speed up justice, but ordinary courts remain the guarantor of rights.
- At NGT's climate conference, Modi says developing nations are wrongly blamed for emissions
The NGT is the prime example of a specialised tribunal whose orders go directly to the Supreme Court, relevant to the debate on tribunals and ordinary courts.