logo
CII urges govt to establish centralised oversight mechanism for tribunals

CII urges govt to establish centralised oversight mechanism for tribunals

The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has urged the government to establish a centralised oversight mechanism for tribunals, emphasising the need for uniformity, policy coherence, and enhanced performance across these crucial adjudicatory bodies. Calling for amendments to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the CII said there was a need to provide a robust statutory foundation for such a mechanism.
Despite handling a significant caseload in critical domains such as taxation, environment, and labour, tribunals currently operate under fragmented administrative controls across various ministries, resulting in functional inconsistencies and a lack of standardisation, the CII pointed out.
'A key concern for tribunals is the absence of real-time performance statistics, which limits the scope for undertaking evidence-based reforms. In contrast, such statistics are readily available for the entire court system of the country on the 'National Judicial Data Grid', maintained by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court,' the policy advocacy body said.
A central oversight body could be tasked with key responsibilities such as performance monitoring, data tracking, coordination with search-cum-selection committees, capacity building, and independent grievance redressal, the CII said, adding that this institution should be backed by appropriate legal amendments defining its structure, scope, and mandate.
Currently, over 16 central tribunals operate under different ministries, adjudicating disputes across sectors integral to economic governance and the rule of law. For instance, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) plays a central role in implementing the Companies Act, 2013, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016—both crucial to corporate debt resolution and investor confidence, the release said.
Citing a staggering ₹6.7 trillion in tax disputes pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as of 31 December 2024—amounting to nearly 57 per cent of all litigated direct tax claims—the CII stressed that improving tribunal efficiency could unlock substantial fiscal resources and boost the ease of doing business.
While acknowledging that the government has taken steps through the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, CII noted that challenges such as persistent vacancies, delayed appointments, inadequate infrastructure, and the absence of systematic performance tracking continue to plague the system.
To reinforce its proposal, CII referred to multiple Supreme Court judgments and expert recommendations, including the 272nd Report of the Law Commission of India (2017). The idea of a centralised tribunal oversight body was first endorsed by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), and reiterated in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2020), where the Court directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunals Commission, the body said.
'A centralised oversight institution would be a transformational step in making India's justice delivery system more efficient, responsive, and future-ready,' CII concluded, noting that such a move would significantly enhance regulatory credibility, investor confidence, and economic governance.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Harish raps Uttam for misleading people on key irrigation projects
Harish raps Uttam for misleading people on key irrigation projects

Hans India

time12 minutes ago

  • Hans India

Harish raps Uttam for misleading people on key irrigation projects

Hyderabad: Over the alleged failure to protect Telangana's water interests and favouring Andhra Pradesh, BRS senior leader T Harish Rao on Friday said that while Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy was the brand ambassador of lies, Irrigation Minister N Uttam Kumar Reddy surpassed even the CM. Harish Rao accused them of failing to protect Telangana's water interests while favouring Andhra Pradesh while addressing a press conference at Dubbaka here on Friday. Harish Rao criticised Uttam Kumar Reddy for misleading the people on key irrigation projects. He alleged that the Congress government halted the Rayalaseema Lift Irrigation works initiated by the previous BRS government, only to restart them later for political gains. Harish Rao mocked Uttam Kumar Reddy for meeting Andhra Pradesh's former CM Chandrababu Naidu and then remaining passive while Telangana's water rights were being compromised. He accused the Congress government of using the lowest-ever Krishna River water allocations in state history, depriving farmers in Khammam, Nalgonda, and Mahbubnagar of irrigation. Rao said that under temporary allocations, Telangana received 65 tmcft less water, leaving 6.5 lakh acres parched. Harish Rao demanded answers from Uttam Kumar Reddy, asking why he remained silent while Andhra Pradesh allegedly diverted 400 tmcft of Godavari water illegally. He slammed Uttam Kumar Reddy for failing to prepare for the Babli project despite being the Irrigation Minister. He questioned why the government had not approached the Supreme Court or pressured the Centre to stop Andhra's unauthorised projects. Rao criticised BJP leaders for not speaking up against Andhra Pradesh's alleged water theft. He warned that if the state government did not act, BRS would approach the Supreme Court. Harish Rao accused the Congress government of deceiving employees by forming multiple committees instead of fulfilling promises on Dearness Allowance (DA) and Pay Revision Commission (PRC) benefits. He demanded immediate release of pending DAs and better PRC benefits than those given under the previous BRS government. He dismissed CM Revanth Reddy's claims that Kaleshwaram was collapsing, arguing that projects like Gandhamalla, Mallannasagar, and Ranganayak Sagar depend on it. He challenged the CM to explain how water would reach Gandhamalla if Kaleshwaram was truly defunct.

Supreme Court slaps notice on KTR over alleged Musi scam
Supreme Court slaps notice on KTR over alleged Musi scam

Hans India

time27 minutes ago

  • Hans India

Supreme Court slaps notice on KTR over alleged Musi scam

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to KT Rama Rao in the case related to the BRS leader's allegations of corruption by the Congress government to the tune of Rs 25,000 crore in Musi. A hearing was held in the Supreme Court on Friday on the petition filed by Congress leader Atram Suguna. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the petition. Rama Rao had previously alleged that the Congress government had committed a scam of Rs 25,000 crore in the name of Musi rejuvenation. Expressing strong objection to the allegations made by KTR, Congress leader Atram Suguna filed a complaint at the Utnur police station. The police registered a case against KTR based on the complaint of the Congress leader. KTR had earlier approached the Telangana High Court to quash the case registered against him. After hearing the arguments, the High Court gave a verdict quashing the FIR registered against KTR. However, Suguna filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court verdict. The hearing on this was held on Friday and the Supreme Court issued notices to KTR asking him to reply to the petition.

US Supreme Court gives DOGE access to sensitive social security data
US Supreme Court gives DOGE access to sensitive social security data

Business Standard

time37 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

US Supreme Court gives DOGE access to sensitive social security data

The decision allows DOGE, once led by Elon Musk, full access to personal data in the Social Security database while the case moves forward on appeal Bloomberg By Greg Stohr and Zoe Tillman The US Supreme Court gave the Department of Government Efficiency access to sensitive Social Security information, lifting restrictions a judge said were needed to protect the privacy of millions of Americans. Over three dissents, the high court on Friday granted a Trump administration request to put US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander's order on hold. The decision lets DOGE, the office once led by Elon Musk, have full access to personally identifiable information in the Social Security Administration database while the case proceeds on appeal. 'Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in a three-paragraph order, which didn't lay out the majority's reasoning. The court's three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented. In an opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson said the court was 'creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' In a separate decision, the high court said a different judge went too far by requiring DOGE officials to testify and produce records to a watchdog group. The order came in a case about whether the DOGE office is covered by US public records laws. The Supreme Court liberals dissented from that decision as well. The cases are the first Supreme Court clashes involving DOGE, the office set up by President Donald Trump to weed out what he says is wasteful spending across the federal government. Sensitive Data Musk recently left his formal government position within the administration and is now publicly feuding with Trump. In the SSA case, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that 'the government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.' The disputed data includes Social Security numbers, addresses, birth and marriage certificates, tax and earnings records, employment history, and bank and credit card information. Hollander said two labor unions and an advocacy group for retired people were likely to succeed on their claims that unfettered access would violate the 1974 Privacy Act. 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,' the Baltimore-based judge wrote. 'This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.' Hollander's order allowed DOGE team members access to anonymized data only after completing the type of training and background checks required for SSA employees. She said DOGE employees could get 'discrete, particularized and non-anonymized' information if they submitted a written statement explaining why the information was needed and why anonymous data was insufficient. Hollander also ordered people affiliated with DOGE to delete data they've already acquired. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals kept Hollander's order in place on a 9-6 vote. In her dissent, Jackson said the lower courts had crafted an order 'tailored to the needs of the moment.' She said the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings' by granting the government's request without requiring it to show that it was suffering any harm. 'The 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes,' she wrote. Democracy Forward, the legal-advocacy group that represented the challengers, said it was a 'sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people.' White House spokesperson Liz Huston hailed the decision. 'The Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law,' she said in an email. The case is Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 24A1063. DOGE Records The Supreme Court's action in the records case blocks a Washington federal judge's order for the administration to answer questions, produce documents and make DOGE administrator Amy Gleason available to testify at a deposition. US District Judge Christopher Cooper had authorized the group that brought the public records case, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, to gather evidence about DOGE's activities as it fights with the Justice Department over the office's legal status. The Supreme Court majority faulted Cooper for requiring the government to disclose internal DOGE recommendations and to say whether those suggestions were followed. 'Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications,' the Supreme Court said in its two-page order. Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson didn't explain their reasons for dissenting. CREW has argued that the DOGE Service should be considered an agency under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which empowers the public to see a wide range of government records. The Trump administration disagrees, arguing that DOGE plays a purely advisory role within the White House and is exempt from the law. Musk served as the public face of DOGE, but government lawyers stressed in court that Gleason is the formal head of the DOGE office. CREW's underlying public records request seeks to pry loose new information about the Tesla Inc. chief executive's role in dramatic cuts to federal spending and the workforce. The lawsuit also aims to reveal more broadly what DOGE-affiliated staff have been doing and the structure of that effort across US agencies. The case is US DOGE Service v. CREW, 24A1122.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store