Understanding the Influence of Appellate Tribunals onthe Judicial Process in India
Keywords:
Appellate Tribunals, Judicial Process, Judicial Review, Constitutional RightsAbstract
Appellate tribunals play a crucial role in the Indian judicial system by addressing specialized disputes and alleviating the burden on traditional courts. Established to provide faster adjudication in areas, such as taxation, corporate law, administrative matters, and environmental concerns, these quasijudicial bodies aim to deliver justice efficiently and cost-effectively. Tribunals are designed to combine legal expertise with technical knowledge, enabling informed decisions in complex legal domains. However, their influence on the judicial process is both transformative and challenging. While they enhance judicial efficiency by expediting case resolution and reducing pendency, concerns about judicial independence, procedural fairness, and executive control over appointments have raised significant debates. Judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court ensures that appellate tribunals function within constitutional boundaries, safeguarding principles of natural justice and protecting fundamental rights. Landmark judgments, such as L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), have reinforced the importance of judicial oversight to maintain accountability and prevent misuse of power. This study examines the effectiveness of appellate tribunals in reducing judicial workloads, their role in protecting constitutional rights, and the challenges they face in maintaining transparency and independence. The findings emphasize the need for institutional reforms, improved regulatory frameworks, and stronger oversight mechanisms to enhance the credibility and integration of appellate tribunals into India’s judicial system, ensuring a more accessible and efficient justice delivery process.
References
1. Robinson N. Structure matters: The impact of court structure on the Indian and US Supreme Courts. Am J Comp Law. 2013;61(1):173–208.
2. Mate M, Kapiszewski D. Public interest litigation and the transformation of the Supreme Court of India. Conseq Court Judic Role Glob Persp. 2013;262–88.
3. Robinson N. Expanding judiciaries: India and the rise of the good governance court. Wash U Global Stud L Rev. 2009;8(1).
4. Wallace JC. Improving the appellate process worldwide through maximizing judicial resources. Vand J Transnat’l L. 2005;38:187.
5. Krishnan JK, Kavadi SN, Girach A, Khupkar D. Grappling at the grassroots: Access to justice in India’s lower tier. Harv Hum Rts J. 2014;27:151.
6. Cane P, Hertogh M, Halliday S. Understanding judicial review and its impact. Judic Rev BureauI Imp IntI Interdisc Persp. 2004;15–42.
7. Amirante D. Environmental courts in comparative perspective: Preliminary reflections on the National Green Tribunal of India. Pace Envtl L Rev. 2011;29:441.
8. JJ FMIK. Supreme Court of India. ORDER. 2014;10:20141.
9. Thiruvengadam AK, Joshi P. Judiciaries as crucial actors in southern regulatory systems: A case study of Indian telecom regulation. Regul Govern. 2012;6(3):327–43.
10. Tarr GA. Judicial process and judicial policymaking. Routledge; 2019.
11. Bhuwania A. Courting the people: public interest litigation in post-emergency India (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press; 2017.
12. Bhattacharya P, Paul S, Ghosh K, Ghosh S, Wyner A. Identification of rhetorical roles of sentences in indian legal judgments. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. IOS Press; 2019. pp. 3–12.
13. Gill GN. Environmental justice in India: The National Green Tribunal and expert members. Transnat Environ Law. 2016;5(1):175–205.
14. Graham BL. Toward an understanding of judicial diversity in American courts. Mich J Race L. 2004;10:153.
15. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ, Benesh SC. The Supreme Court in the American legal system. Cambridge University Press; 2005.
16. Gawas VM. Doctrinal legal research method a guiding principle in reforming the law and legal system towards the research development. Int J Law. 2017;3(5):128–30.
17. Geyh CG. When courts and congress collide: the struggle for control of America’s judicial system. University of Michigan Press; 2006.
18. Carp RA, Manning KL, Holmes LM, Stidham R. Judicial process in America. Cq Press; 2019.
19. Brinks DM, Gauri V. The law’s majestic equality? The distributive impact of judicializing social and economic rights. Persp Polit. 2014;12(2):375–93.
20. Falavigna G, Ippoliti R, Ramello GB. DEA-based Malmquist productivity indexes for understanding courts reform. Socio Econ Plan Sci. 2018;62:31–43.
