Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Fora other than Courts
The doctrine of separation of powers has been deeply enshrined in our Constitution. Some five decades ago, when the Constitution was framed, the activities of the State were relatively few and limited. Since then, the State's activities have increased considerably and the Central and State Governments have also entered into commercial and other fields. The disputes between government employees regarding service conditions, transfers, promotions, appointments, etc. have also increased.
The framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated all these, which is why they limited themselves only to certain judicial fora to give relief to the citizens of the country. Perhaps, at the time, they felt that the existing courts of law were sufficient to meet the judicial aspirations of the people and deal with all types of disputes. It was, however, subsequently realised that ordinary courts of law, with their traditional and procedural limitations, were not adequate to meet the changed situation and solve the various problems that arose in the new socio-economic context. As a result of this, various tribunals are/were established which are not strictly courts in the traditional sense. But they entertain and decide a large number of disputes, following the proper legal procedure. Some of the reasons for setting up such courts and tribunals are as follows.
Why Tribunals rather than Courts
i. The traditional judicial system is inadequate to decide and settle all disputes that require adjudication. It is found to be slow, expensive, inexpert, complex and formalistic. In addition, it is grossly overburdened. There are many important matters such as disputes between employers and employees, lockouts, strikes, etc. which require speedy disposal, and which can be determined in other fora.
ii. Tribunals established in this way can take a functional rather than a theoretical and legalistic approach, and thus avoid technicalities. It may not be necessary for and procedure. They can take a practical view of the matter to decide even specialised and complex problems with expert knowledge.
iii. Many of the disputed questions are technical in nature. Within traditional judiciary it is difficult and cumbersome to deal with these, nor is the judiciary fully equipped to collect material on these and take speedy manned by experts who can deal with and solve such problems; for example problems relating to family disputes, gas, electricity, railway rates, monopolistic practices, consumer disputes, etc.
iv. Such tribunals do their work more expeditiously, inexpensively and efficiently than ordinary courts, as they possess greater technical knowledge. They are designed to pay more attention to the social interests involved in order to decide disputes with a conscious effort at furthering the policy of equitable settlement and social justice embodied in the legislation.
The doctrine of separation of powers has been deeply enshrined in our Constitution. Some five decades ago, when the Constitution was framed, the activities of the State were relatively few and limited. Since then, the State's activities have increased considerably and the Central and State Governments have also entered into commercial and other fields. The disputes between government employees regarding service conditions, transfers, promotions, appointments, etc. have also increased.
The framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated all these, which is why they limited themselves only to certain judicial fora to give relief to the citizens of the country. Perhaps, at the time, they felt that the existing courts of law were sufficient to meet the judicial aspirations of the people and deal with all types of disputes. It was, however, subsequently realised that ordinary courts of law, with their traditional and procedural limitations, were not adequate to meet the changed situation and solve the various problems that arose in the new socio-economic context. As a result of this, various tribunals are/were established which are not strictly courts in the traditional sense. But they entertain and decide a large number of disputes, following the proper legal procedure. Some of the reasons for setting up such courts and tribunals are as follows.
Why Tribunals rather than Courts
i. The traditional judicial system is inadequate to decide and settle all disputes that require adjudication. It is found to be slow, expensive, inexpert, complex and formalistic. In addition, it is grossly overburdened. There are many important matters such as disputes between employers and employees, lockouts, strikes, etc. which require speedy disposal, and which can be determined in other fora.
ii. Tribunals established in this way can take a functional rather than a theoretical and legalistic approach, and thus avoid technicalities. It may not be necessary for and procedure. They can take a practical view of the matter to decide even specialised and complex problems with expert knowledge.
iii. Many of the disputed questions are technical in nature. Within traditional judiciary it is difficult and cumbersome to deal with these, nor is the judiciary fully equipped to collect material on these and take speedy manned by experts who can deal with and solve such problems; for example problems relating to family disputes, gas, electricity, railway rates, monopolistic practices, consumer disputes, etc.
iv. Such tribunals do their work more expeditiously, inexpensively and efficiently than ordinary courts, as they possess greater technical knowledge. They are designed to pay more attention to the social interests involved in order to decide disputes with a conscious effort at furthering the policy of equitable settlement and social justice embodied in the legislation.
0 comments: