GS2 2025 Q2 10 marks 150 words Administrative Tribunals

UPSC Mains 2025 GS2 Q2 — Administrative Tribunals

Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021. (Answer in 150 words)

Similar Previous Year Questions

Related Prelims MCQs

Build factual foundation — these MCQs cover facts/concepts you'll need for this Mains question.

Source Map — where to read

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) · World Constitutions · p.797 Polity

"• 1. In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India? 150 words • 2. Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in religious minority institutions? Examine. [150 words] elected government of Delhi? Examine. [250 words] 15 • 7. How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above,…"

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). · THE HIGH COURT · p.365 Polity

"Since the decisions of such tribunals have the force or effect of a judicial decision upon the parties, and yet the tribunals do not follow the exact procedure adopted by courts of justice, the need arises to place them under the control of superior courts. To keep them within the proper limits of their jurisdiction and also to prevent them from committing any act of gross injustice.…"

Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. · Tribunals · p.366 Polity

"The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 empowers the Central government to establish State Administrative Tribunals (SAT) on specific request of the concerned state governments. Like the CAT, the SAT's exercise original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of state government employees. The chairman and members of the SAl's are appointed by the central government on the recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee shared by the Chief Justice of the High Court of the concerned state. The act also makes a provision for setting up of joint administrative tribuna…"

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). · TABLES · p.547 Polity

"NOTE : "Parliament had enacted the Administrative Tribunals Ac~, 1985 which came into force in July, 1985 and the Administrative Tribunals were established in November, 1985 at Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta and Allahabad. Today, there are 17 Benches of the Tribunal Located throughout the country wherever the seat of a high court is located. With 33 Division Bencnes…"

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) · Tribunals · p.366 Polity

"The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 empowers the Central government to establish the State Administrative Tribunals (SAT) on specific request of the concerned state governments. Like the CAT, the SAT's exercise original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of state government employees. The chairman and members of the SAl's are appointed by the central government on the recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee shared by the Chief Justice of the High Court of the concerned state. The act also makes a provision for setting up of joint administrative tri…"

How this topic is evolving

New Dimension Connected to trend: Judicial Assertiveness and Institutional Timelines · 99 recent news items

While the 2021 tribunal reforms focused on administrative rationalization and merger, the discourse has now shifted to 'institutional timelines' and 'procedural discipline.' Recent Supreme Court rulings have transformed administrative efficiency and speedy adjudication from mere organizational goals into fundamental rights under Article 21, as seen in the court's scrutiny of indefinite delays in bail matters and bill assents.

A current examiner could reframe this as:

The effectiveness of specialized adjudicatory bodies is increasingly measured by their adherence to institutional timelines rather than just technical expertise. In this context, discuss how the Supreme Court's recent push against 'procedural delays' is reshaping the relationship between administrative efficiency and the right to a speedy trial. (Answer in 150 words)

Why this framing: Supreme Court's framing of indefinite delays as procedural violations of Article 21.

Question Decoded — examiner's intent

Directive verbs
CommentAssess
Scope keywords
administrative tribunalscourt systemrecent tribunal reformsrationalization of tribunals2021
Implicit sub-parts
  • Functional utility of tribunals over traditional courts (expertise, speed, flexibility).
  • Analysis of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and the abolition of specific appellate bodies.
  • Critical evaluation of the impact on judicial efficiency versus access to justice.
  • The tension between executive control over appointments and judicial independence (L. Chandra Kumar case relevance).
Common pitfalls
  • Focusing too much on the history of 42nd Amendment instead of the specific 'need' compared to courts.
  • Failing to mention the 'Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021' specifically or which bodies were abolished (e.g., Film Certification Appellate Tribunal).
  • Ignoring the 'rationalization' aspect, which refers to the merging and streamlining of bodies to reduce the burden on the exchequer.
  • Writing a generic essay on judicial delay without addressing the specific 2021 reform's impact.
Dimensions required
Constitutional (Articles 323A and 323B)Administrative EfficiencyLegal/Jurisdictional (High Court vs. Tribunal hierarchy)Economic (Cost-effectiveness of rationalization)Separation of Powers
Marks allocation hint

Spend approximately 50-60 words justifying the need for tribunals using a comparative lens with courts. Devote the remaining 90 words to the 2021 reforms, explicitly weighing the benefits of rationalization against concerns regarding judicial vacancy and the transfer of cases back to High Courts.

How examiners have framed this topic over the years

Evolution from testing constitutional validity and judicial independence (2018-19) to evaluating executive-led rationalization and comparative structural utility (2025).

Reform Focus Based on 5 cross-year PYQs

The examiner’s lens on Tribunals has shifted from examining their functional independence in 2019 (CAT's role as a judicial authority) and their constitutional validity/boundary disputes with the judiciary in 2018, to a pragmatic assessment of structural efficiency in 2025. While 2018 focused on the 'jurisdictional conflict' with ordinary courts, the 2025 framing introduces a comparative necessity ('need... as compared to the court system') and specifically targets the legislative 'rationalization' of 2021. This indicates a transition from theoretical/constitutional debates to evaluating the executive's recent efforts to overhaul the tribunal architecture for administrative efficiency.

Dimensions tested
Functional independence and judicial characterConstitutional validity and competencyJurisdictional overlap with ordinary courtsGrievance redressal mechanismsLegislative reforms and rationalization of bodiesComparative necessity (Tribunals vs. Courts)
Angles still under-tested
The 'Tribunalization' of justice and its impact on the 'Separation of Powers' doctrineIssues of pendency and vacancy within tribunals compared to High CourtsThe role of the 'National Tribunals Commission' as proposed by the Supreme Court
PYQs this pattern was synthesized from

Answer Skeleton — fill this in

Introduction

Tribunals are quasi-judicial institutions established under Articles 323A and 323B to provide specialized, cost-effective, and speedy justice, acting as a supplement to the traditional court system [M. Laxmikanth, Ch. 34].

Need for Tribunals vs. Court System

Efficiency and Technical Expertise

  • Specialization: Handling complex matters like environment (NGT) or tax (ITAT) which require domain experts alongside judicial members [M. Laxmikanth, Ch. 34].
  • Procedural Flexibility: Freedom from rigid Code of Civil Procedure allows for principles of "Natural Justice" to expedite disposal [NCERT Class 11, Indian Constitution at Work].
  • Reduced Burden: Alleviating the backlog of 5 crore+ pending cases in the formal judiciary.

Assessment of Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

Rationalization and Structural Changes

  • Abolition of Bodies: Dissolved 8 defunct/overlapping tribunals (e.g., Film Certification Appellate Tribunal), shifting jurisdictions to High Courts [PRS Legislative Research, August 2021].
  • Uniformity: Standardized terms of office (4 years) and age limits (67 for Chairpersons) to streamline administration.

Impact and Critical Concerns

  • Efficiency Gains: Reduces "tribunalization" and administrative overhead by pruning underperforming bodies.
  • Judicial Burden: Transferring cases to already overburdened High Courts may increase pendency [PRS Legislative Research, August 2021].
  • Independence Issues: Concerns regarding the Search-cum-Selection Committee composition impacting the separation of powers [L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India Case].

Conclusion

While rationalization ensures lean governance, the government must ensure that High Courts are adequately staffed to handle the new influx of cases. True reform lies in balancing executive efficiency with judicial independence to uphold the rule of law.

Ready to practice?

Take this question, write your own answer in 150 words, and get an instant, rubric-based evaluation showing where you stand.

Open evaluation workspace →