SC, Centre quibble over tribunals' direct appeals

The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked adversely on the government proclivity to enacting laws all too frequently providing for direct appeals from tribunals to the top court. This implicitly excludes the High Court's jurisdiction to deal with specialised topics assigned to such tribunals and increases the workload of the top court.

Justice KM Joseph-led bench said this has ensured that every case eventually lands up in the top court. He seemed to imply that the legislature had not been too wise in doing so. The bench also said this was against another top court ruling which had laid down clearly that the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts cannot be excluded either implicitly or explicitly.

In some instances such as the NGT, the law provided for direct appeals to the top court. That ends up burdening the top court. This possibly prompted Justice Joseph to remark adversely.


Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had in fact earlier threatened to wind up tribunals if they were not filled up. Some appointments have since been made to these tribunals.

Justice Joseph's remarks were contested by the government through Attorney General KK Venugopal. The AG suggested that the court cannot decide what cases it can or cannot hear and that it was in the legislature's discretion to decide these issues. The government brought in a tribunal reforms act and it was struck down, the AG complained.

A subsequent ordinance brought in is also under challenge, the AG said. He said that these specialised tribunals cannot be treated as inferior to the High Courts.