Tribunals and Fast track courts

Tribunals	Are quasi-judicial body, established by an act of parliament or state legislature. 1st ARC recommended for civil service Tribunals  42nd CA Act : 323A and B: on recommendation of Swaran Singh Committee Administrative and other tribunals respectively Administrative Tribunal Act of 1985 CAT NGT NCLT
Need:	Flexibility: Not bound by rigid rules of CPC or Indian evidence act. Less Expensive: Relief to Courts: Because they reduce the burden Expert knowledge on a specialized subject.
different from courts	Established by legislation less formal, less expensive, faster, expertise,
Problems	Violation of doctrine of separation of power, article 50 Executive is also largest litigant which creates conflict of interest. Tribunals don’t have constitutional protection, service conditions can be varied by rules Undermining judiciary and have replaced high courts in various acts Sidestepping High court, by an appeal directly to SC after appellate tribunal. Average pendency across tribunals is 3.8 years and HC it is 4.3 years Scant geographic availability, not as accessible as High courts Overlapping jurisdiction between tribunals like CCI and TRAI, etc. Huge vacancies in tribunals have defeated the very purpose of their creation.
Way Forward	L. Chandra kumar case 1997: Appeal first to HC and then to supreme court. Law commission report 272: Qualification of judges should be akin to qualification of judges of high courts Common nodal agency for appointment, tenure and service conditions Vacancy should be filed in 6 months' time Selection of members of tribunals: Selection should be impartial Separate committee for selecting judicial and administrative members Tenure: Chairperson 3 years or 70 years, other members, 3 years or 67 years Any order may be challenged in Division bench of HC Must have benches in different parts of the country for accessibility. Independence in functionality and visiblity (not to be like a government department) Formalization of the tribunal structure
New	Reorganized tribunals in Finance Act 2017

Fast Track Courts:	NLU Delhi Fast Track courts are getting sluggish
Facts:	Established in 2000 to expeditiously dispose long pending cases in Sessions courts and long pending cases of under trial prisoners 11th FC recommended establishment of FTC No central funding to FTC since 2011, State governments maintain own their own. 14th FC also recommended setting up fast track courts, there are currently 670 FTC in country Slow and inefficient, 6.5 lakh FTC and 39 lakh cases
Issues	Insufficient fast track courts,  In Delhi FTC have only 1 or 2 judges Additional district judge or sessions judge is run on an ad-hoc basis, SC discontinue or make them permanent Heavy workload, over the years number of cases allotted to them have increases. Lack of infra. Not set up with different facilities, and often housed in existing court They don't follow any speedier, special procedure for disposal of cases Brij Mohan Lal case: SC held that FTC domain of state government, with their own funds.
Way Ahead	Rationalization of judicial structure, with cooperation between FTC and Special courts Capacity building and improving infrastructure as originally envisaged, therefore hiring of additional judges Sensitizing state governments, Holistic approach of fast tracking the cases.