Supreme Court Directs Ministry Of Law & Justice To Conduct Judicial Impact Assessment Of All Tribunals At The Earliest
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli recently upheld the notification issued by the Central Government in 2019 to abolish the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) and dismissed the petition filed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal Bar Association challenging the Orissa High Court's decision which upheld the abolition of OAT. In...
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli recently upheld the notification issued by the Central Government in 2019 to abolish the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) and dismissed the petition filed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal Bar Association challenging the Orissa High Court's decision which upheld the abolition of OAT. In its judgement in the matter, the Apex Court reiterated that the Ministry of Law and Justice must conduct "Judicial Impact Assessment" of tribunals as per its directions in the case of Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd.
In Rojer Mathew, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while striking down the rules framed by the Centre for Tribunals in 2017, held that there was a need-based requirement to conduct “judicial impact assessment” of all the Tribunals referable to the Finance Act, 2017 so as to analyse the ramifications of the changes in the framework of tribunals as provided under the Finance Act, 2017. Accordingly, the court had directed Ministry of Law and Justice to carry out such judicial impact assessment and submit the result of the findings before the competent legislative authority.
The Court noted that despite the judgment in Rojer Mathew being delivered on 13 November 2019, the Ministry of Law and Justice had yet not conducted a judicial impact assessment despite more than three years having been passed. The court stated–
"An assessment such as the one directed to be conducted would only shed light on the impediments faced in the delivery of justice. The lack of an assessment precludes any well-informed, intelligent action concerning tribunals in the country (as a whole). This, in turn, has cascading effects for the citizenry, which is deprived of a well-oiled machinery by which it can access justice. We therefore reiterate the directions of this Court in Rojer Mathew (supra) and direct the Ministry of Law and Justice to conduct a judicial impact assessment at the earliest."
However, the Apex Court noted that in the present case, the failure of the Union Government to conduct a judicial impact assessment before abolishing the OAT did not vitiate its decision to abolish the OAT. While noting that the direction passed in Rojer Mathew was "general in nature", the bench noted that the direction was geared towards proposals to abolish specific tribunals such as the OAT. The court added–
"The judicial impact assessment was also directed to be conducted in order to better understand the case load, efficacy, financial impact, and accessibility of tribunals at large, in addition to the filling of vacancies."
The court added that in the present case, the Union Government had issued the notification concerning abolition of the OAT before the Rojer Mathew judgment. Thus, the failure to conduct a judicial impact assessment, as per the court, did not vitiate its decision to abolish the OAT.
Case Title: Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India & others | Civil Appeal No 6805 of 2022
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216