One of the peculiarities of the tribunalization process in the Indian legal setup is that all decisions of the tribunals can be reviewed by High Courts despite the fact that tribunals were setup in order to reduce the pendency of cases before High Courts. In all fairness to Parliament it had stated in some of the parents statutes of these tribunals that the jurisdiction of the High Courts would be excluded. However when the constitutionality of these legislations were challenged in the L. Chandra Kumar case, the Supreme Court held that the High Courts would continue to entertain the power of judicial review of all orders passed by these tribunals. The reason for this appears to be a very realist concern of the Supreme Court that the quality of justice before these tribunals was exceptionally poor. Image from here.
While laying down the guidelines for judicial review of orders passed by tribunals, the Supreme Court in its wisdom clearly stated that all such decisions of the IPAB could be reviewed only by a Division Bench of a High Court i.e. a 2 judges-bench. In pertinent part the High Court stated “All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.” There is some logic to this rule because the tribunal is usually headed by a Chairperson who is qualified to be a High Court judge or who has been a High Court judge and it therefore makes no logical sense to have an order of such a tribunal reviewed by yet another single judge of the High Court.
The judgments of the Bombay and Delhi High Court (available over here & here) however reveal that appeals against the orders of the IPAB are being heard by single judges and not Division Benches. The Madras High Court however reviews IPAB decisions only through a Division Bench. Therefore not only are both courts in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines but they are also adding another layer of appeals to the system because a Division Bench can admit appeals against the orders of a Single Judge. It is clearly not the most efficient system.
