Latest news with #NationalJudicialDataGrid
The Hindu
12 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Have publicly pledged to refuse post-retirement jobs: CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has said that he and his colleagues in the Supreme Court have publicly pledged to not undermine the public's trust in judicial integrity by accepting post-retirement roles or positions from the government. Speaking at a round table in the U.K. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Gavai said a judge contesting elections for political office immediately after retirement or resignation could lead to doubts about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, 'as it may be seen as a conflict of interest or as an attempt to gain favour with the government'. 'If a judge takes up another appointment with the government immediately after retirement, or resigns from the Bench to contest elections, it raises significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny… The timing and nature of such post-retirement engagements could undermine the public's trust in the judiciary's integrity, as it could create a perception that judicial decisions were influenced by the prospect of future government appointments or political involvement,' Chief Justice Gavai said during a discussion on 'Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence'. The Chief Justice referred to the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission in 2015 as a counter-action to government's efforts to dilute judicial independence, saying 'there may be criticisms of the Collegium system, but any solution must not come at the cost of judicial independence. Judges must be free from external control'. 'Judiciary acts as a counterbalance against the arbitrary exercise of power… Certain fundamental principles, such as democracy, rule of law, and the separation of powers, are inviolable and cannot be altered,' the CJI said. Chief Justice Gavai acknowledged the recent incidents of corruption in judiciary but said the path to handling judicial misdemeanour and re-build the path to public trust was 'swift, decisive, and transparent action'. 'In India, when such instances have come to light, the Supreme Court has consistently taken immediate and appropriate measures to address the misconduct,' the CJI said even as the Parliament is expected to bring a removal motion against High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma. The Chief Justice also referred to the voluntary disclosure of assets by the judges of the Supreme Court to promote greater accountability and ethical leadership, live streaming of court proceedings, real-time information on case pendency offered on the National Judicial Data Grid, translation of apex court judgments to regional languages and broader access to justice for vulnerable communities through the public interest litigation system. 'Article 32, which guarantees all citizens the fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court, has been referred to as the 'soul' and 'heart' of the Constitution,' the CJI noted. Chief Justice Gavai highlighted the importance of courts having an independent power of judicial review while examining the constitutionality of laws. The court is currently seized of a challenge to the amendments to the waqf law. 'Courts must have the power of independent judicial review, allowing judges to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions that conflict with the provisions of the Constitution or established constitutional principles,' the CJI said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
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.
Mint
25-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Make tribunals efficient to free up disputed funds: Industry body
India should set up a centralised oversight mechanism to improve the functioning of quasi-judicial tribunals and unlock huge funds tied up in unresolved disputes, the Confederation of Indian Industry said. CII said in a statement on Sunday that the efficiency of tribunals adjudicating on important areas such as labour, environment, and taxation is critical for improving the overall ease of doing business. As of the end of December 2024, ₹ 6.7 trillion was pending resolution at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) alone, accounting for nearly 57% of all the disputed direct tax amount in the country, the industry body said, pitching for a centralised oversight mechanism for tribunals. Such a mechanism would ensure uniformity, policy coherence, and improvement in tribunals' overall performance, the industry body said. CII suggested that to put this in place, suitable amendments may be introduced in the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, defining its mandate, structure, scope, and responsibilities. This central body could undertake functions like performance monitoring, data tracking, coordination with the search-cum-selection committees, capacity building, and independent grievance redressal. The industry body also said administrative control of tribunals is fragmented across various ministries and departments, leading to a lack of standardisation and functional inconsistencies. 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 information is 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, CII said. Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies designed to adjudicate disputes in specific disciplines, such as taxation, company law, environmental regulation, and public service matters. Today, over 16 central tribunals operate under different ministries across key sectors. While the government has sought to address challenges through the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, constraints such as persistent vacancies, delayed appointments, inadequate infrastructure, lack of performance monitoring, and ineffective grievance redressal mechanisms continue to undermine tribunals' effectiveness and efficiency, CII said. Setting up a centralised oversight institution for tribunals would be a transformative step towards making India's justice delivery system more responsive, efficient, and future-ready, directly contributing to boosting regulatory credibility, improving ease of doing business and enhancing investors' confidence, CII stated.
Hans India
25-05-2025
- Business
- Hans India
CII urges Govt to set up centralised oversight mechanism for tribunals
Apex business chamber CII has urged the Government to set up a centralised oversight mechanism to ensure uniformity, policy coherence, and improvement in the overall performance of tribunals that adjudicate a large volume of cases in critical areas such as labour, environment, and taxes. In a research note released on Sunday, CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) suggested that suitable amendments may be introduced in the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, to provide legislative backing to this exercise. "Such a central body could undertake functions like performance monitoring, data tracking, coordination with the search-cum-selection committees, capacity building, and independent grievance redressal," the note said. According to CII, enhancing the efficiency of tribunals is critical for unlocking substantial fiscal resources tied up in disputes and improving the overall ease of doing business. For instance, as of December 31, 2024, Rs 6.7 trillion was pending resolution at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) alone, which constituted nearly 57 per cent of all ligated direct taxes amount in the country. Such a high figure highlights the magnitude of matters being adjudicated by tribunals, and the far-reaching implications on investment climate and economic growth. CII said that the administrative control of tribunals is currently fragmented across various ministries and departments, leading to a lack of standardisation and functional inconsistencies. 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. Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies designed to adjudicate domain-specific disputes, in areas like taxation, company law, environmental regulation and public service matters, among others. Originally envisioned as a complement to the conventional court system, tribunals aim to ease the burden on the judiciary while enabling faster, expert-led adjudication in technically complex matters, the note said. Today, over 16 central tribunals operate under different ministries across key sectors of the economy. These bodies directly impact the rule of law, economic governance, and ease of doing business. For example, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) plays a pivotal role in the implementation of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, central to corporate debt resolution, investor confidence, and financial stability, the note observed. CII has also cited several Supreme Court judgments and expert recommendations, including the 272nd Report of the Law Commission of India (2017), all of which advocate for the creation of a centralised oversight mechanism for tribunals. Establishing a centralised oversight institution for tribunals would be a transformational step towards making India's justice delivery system more responsive, efficient, and future-ready, directly contributing to boosting regulatory credibility, improving ease of doing business and enhancing investors' confidence, the CII added.
India Gazette
25-05-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
Establish a centralised oversight machanism for tribunals: CII
New Delhi [India], May 25 (ANI): Establishing a centralised oversight institution for tribunals would be a transformational step towards making India's justice delivery system more responsive, efficient, and future-ready, directly contributing to boosting regulatory credibility, improving ease of doing business and enhancing investors' confidence, said industry body Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). Even though tribunals have traditionally been playing a pivotal role in adjudicating a significantly large volume of cases in certain critical areas such as labour, environment, and taxes, they are yet to have a centralised oversight mechanism that will ensure uniformity, policy coherence, and improvement in their overall performance, said the industry body. In a research note CII has made a strong case for establishing such an oversight mechanism on a priority basis. CII added that to provide legislative backing to this exercise, suitable amendments may be introduced in the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, defining the mandate, structure, scope, and responsibilities. Such a central body could undertake functions like performance monitoring, data tracking, coordination with the Search-Cum-Selection Committees, capacity building, and independent grievance redressal. CII said that the administrative control of tribunals is currently fragmented across various ministries and departments, leading to a lack of standardisation and functional inconsistencies. 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. Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies designed to adjudicate domain-specific disputes in areas like taxation, company law, environmental regulation and public service matters, among others. Originally envisioned as a complement to the conventional court system, tribunals aim to ease the burden on the judiciary while enabling faster, expert-led adjudication in technically complex matters. Today, over 16 central tribunals operate under different ministries across key sectors of the economy. These bodies directly impact the rule of law, economic governance, and ease of doing business. For example, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) plays a pivotal role in the implementation of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which are central to corporate debt resolution, investor confidence, and financial stability, the CII added. According to the industry body, enhancing the efficiency of tribunals is critical for unlocking substantial fiscal resources tied up in disputes and improving the overall ease of doing business. For instance, as of 31st December 2024, Rs 6.7 trillion was pending resolution at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) alone, which constituted nearly 57 per cent of all litigated direct tax amounts in the country. Such a high figure highlights the magnitude of matters being adjudicated by tribunals and the far-reaching implications on investment climate and economic growth, stressed CII. The industry body said that while the government has sought to address challenges through the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, constraints such as persistent vacancies, delayed appointments, inadequate infrastructure, lack of performance monitoring, and ineffective grievance redressal mechanisms continue to undermine tribunals' effectiveness and efficiency. Reinforcing its point, CII has quoted several Supreme Court judgements and expert recommendations, including the 272nd Report of the Law Commission of India (2017), all of which advocate for the creation of a centralised oversight mechanism for tribunals. This idea was first mooted by the Supreme Court, as early as 1997, in the matter of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, wherein it was stated that one of the primary reasons for the inefficiency of tribunals was the absence of a dedicated supervisory authority. Accordingly, the court observed that such a body could be set up under the aegis of the Ministry of Law and Justice until a wholly independent agency was established. In subsequent judgements, the Supreme Court again stressed the need for establishing a centralised mechanism, even directing the Union of India to set up a National Tribunals Commission at the earliest in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2020). (ANI)
