Judicial Alarm: Are Tribunal Members Shying Away from Challenging the Government?

A profound concern has echoed from the highest echelons of India’s judiciary: are our tribunals truly independent? Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai recently cast a critical spotlight on a pervasive issue, observing that non-judicial members of various tribunals appear to shy away from issuing orders that might go against the government.

The CJI’s poignant remarks came during the unveiling of the second volume of "Indian Administrative Law," co-authored by Dr.

S. Muralidhar and Dr. G.B. Reddy. He highlighted that while tribunals were initially envisioned as specialized, efficient avenues for justice, their current functioning often transforms them into mere preliminary stages, with disputes ultimately landing back in the High Courts and Supreme Court for judicial review.

This defeats their very purpose of providing swifter, more accessible justice.

Drawing on the insights from the very book he was launching, CJI Gavai pointed to a troubling finding: a significant number of non-judicial members on these benches tend to either align with the government's stance or exhibit a marked reluctance to rule unfavorably against state authorities.

"The study... clearly reflects that either the non-judicial member is averse to passing any order against the government or generally sides with the government," he stated, urging a deep, collective reflection on this judicial phenomenon.

The genesis of tribunals, post the 42nd Amendment, was rooted in a vision to streamline justice and reduce the burden on traditional courts.

However, as the CJI articulated, the current reality paints a different picture, where the perceived lack of impartiality from non-judicial members undermines public trust and the foundational principle of fairness. This reluctance creates an inherent imbalance, potentially compromising the ability of citizens to secure justice when their grievances involve the state.

This critical observation isn't isolated.

It resonates with broader concerns about the 'non-judicialization' of the judiciary, a term previously used by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (now CJI). This refers to the increasing trend of significant judicial decisions being transferred to bodies that may lack the full independence and judicial rigor of constitutional courts.

The implications are far-reaching, questioning the very fabric of judicial accountability and the assurance of unbiased adjudication.

CJI Gavai’s powerful intervention serves as a clarion call for introspection. It underscores the urgent need to ensure that tribunals, critical components of our justice delivery system, are staffed by members who are not only competent but also truly independent, fearless, and committed to upholding justice without fear or favour.

Only then can these specialized bodies fulfill their constitutional mandate and restore public confidence in their ability to provide fair and speedy resolutions, even when the government is a party.