Tribunal reforms are a must for efficient resolution of disputes

Much will depend on the autonomy they're given to function effectively as quasi-judicial bodies that can relieve Indian courts

- VIJAY L. KELKAR & PRADEEP S. MEHTA

Tribunals were meant to be India's answer to an overburdened judicial system—a fast-track mechanism to resolve disputes efficiently outside the traditional civil court structure. However, the idea of tribunals being a faster and better alternative to court cases has not worked out as expected. Unless we as a society address its shortcomings, we will only be leaping from the frying pan into the fire: i.e., we would be left with another hurdle in India's already slow-moving justice system.

Tribunals were established to handle exclusive matters requiring specialized knowledge. The rationale was clear: quicker resolution, expert adjudication and a reduced burden on courts. Yet, instead of serving as efficient quasi-judicial bodies, many tribunals have turned into non-performers themselves.

This malaise cuts across not just one tribunal, but several. Such as the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).

The 2017 Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) merger with the NCLAT led to an unsustainable caseload for the latter. The NCLAT, already tasked with appeals under the Companies Act and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, was further burdened with competition-law cases. As a result, disposal rates fell. In addition, the benefit of specialization on competition matters was lost.