The last panel for the 2nd edition of The Courts & The Constitution focused on the issue of tribunals and the implications of the Rojer Mathew judgment, delivered in November 2019.
The panel moderator, Vivek Reddy, moved away from the theme of ‘reforming tribunals’ and instead prompted the speakers to speak on the possibility of abandoning the experiment of tribunals altogether and re-designing the structure of High Courts.
Prashant Reddy started his presentation by giving a brief background on judicial tribunals, including the various reasons for their creation and the failure of tribunalisation in India. He touched upon the detrimental bearing of tribunals on centralization of judicial power, reduced access to justice, and impact on federalism. He concluded that litigation of tribunals is symptomatic of a larger crisis in the rule of law.
Dr. Arun Kumar Thiruvengadam has divided his presentation in four sections. Section I provided a brief introduction. Section II analysed the Rojer Mathew judgment and discussed the issues of money bill, excessive delegation, and unconstitutionality of the Rules under the Finance Act. Section III addressed the question posed by the moderator, and he suggested that the faults pointed in the Tribunal system were merely reflective of faults which existed otherwise in the legal system as a whole too. Lastly, Section IV took note of the law and politics surrounding the Foreigners Tribunals.
Please find the portion of the Conference Publication covering this Panel attached below. You can also find the video recording here. We invite response pieces, critically analysing and engaging with the arguments raised by the speakers. (Kindly see Write for Us! for further guidelines).