ROJER MATHEW versus SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED AND ORS

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 407 · Decided: 07-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
ROJER MATHEW
v.
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED AND ORS
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15804 of 2017)
MAY 07, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Administration of Justice – Access to justice – Concept of
Tribunals – Restructuring of Tribunal system – Effective and
autonomous oversight body for all the Tribunals – Issues that require
consideration are: (i) Creation of a regular cadres laying down
eligibility for recruitment for Tribunals – (ii) Setting up of an
autonomous oversight body for recruitment and overseeing the
performance and discipline of the members so recruited and other
issues relating thereto – (iii) Amending the scheme of direct appeals
to Supreme Court so that the orders of Tribunals are subject to
jurisdiction of the High Courts – (iv) Making benches of Tribunals
accessible to common man at convenient locations instead  of having
only one location at Delhi or elsewhere – In the alternative,
conferring jurisdiction on existing courts as special courts or
Tribunals – These issues require urgent setting up of a Committee
required, preferably of three members, one of whom must be retired
judge of Supreme Court who may be served in the Tribunal – Such
committee can have interaction with all stakeholders and suggest a
mechanism consistent with the constitutional scheme and also in
the light of recommendations of expert bodies – This exercise must
be taken in time bound manner – Matter listed on 10.5.2018.
R..K.. Jain  v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119 : [1993]
3 SCR 802 ; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
3 SCC 261 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186 ; Union of India v.
R. Gandhi, President Madras Bar Association
(2010) 11 SCC 1 : [2010] 6 SCR 857 ; Madras Bar
Association v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 1 :
[2014] 10 SCR 1 ; Madras Bar Association v. Union of
India (2015) 8 SCC 583 : [2015] 6 SCR 638 ; Gujarat
Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited
(2016) 9 SCC 103 : [2016] 5 SCR 101 – relied on.
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 407
 407
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1993] 3 SCR 802
  relied on
Para 2
[1997] 2 SCR 1186
  relied on
Para 3
[2010] 6 SCR 857
  relied on
Para 4
[2014] 10 SCR 1
  relied on
Para 5
[2015] 6 SCR 638
  relied on
Para 6
[2016] 5 SCR 101
  relied on
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 15804 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2017 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2349 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 26290
of 2014.
K. K. Venugopal, AG, Maninder Singh, ASG, Arvind P. Datar (AC),
Ms. V. Mohana, Suchindran B.N., Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Renjith B.
Marar, Anubhav Anand Pandey, Krishnada Villadath, Ms. Lakshmi N.
Kaimal, R. Balasubramnian, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Santosh Kr.
Vishwokarma, Prabha Bajaj, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
P. I. Jose, Shashan K. Mishra, Ms. P. S. Chander Lekha, Ms. Preeti
Singh, Advs for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
         O R D E R
1. Restructuring of Tribunal System in the light of constitutional
scheme as interpreted in decisions of this Court and the Expert Studies
is the issue for consideration. Concept of Tribunals was evolved to
decongest the court system and to provide speedy and inexpensive justice.
Separation of powers and independence of judiciary are the constitutional
concepts which have to be followed in setting up of Tribunals. Functioning
of Tribunals is required to be reviewed on the test of speedy and
inexpensive quality justice.
2.  In R.K. Jain versus Union of India1, a Bench of this Court
called for taking stock of the situation of working of Tribunals2. It was
observed that the personnel appointed to man the Tribunals discharge
1 (1993) 4 SCC 119
2 Para 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
judicial/quasi judicial powers and thus, persons who adjudicate upon such
powers must have legal expertise, judicial experience and legal training3.
Independence of judiciary is a must for fair justice4.Institution of Tribunals
being a substitute for courts could not be less effective than the courts to
uphold faith of litigant public5. The Court expressed anguish over
ineffectivity of alternative mechanism for judicial review.  It was observed
that dispensing of justice by Tribunals leaves much to be desired.  Remedy
of appeal to this Court was costly and prohibitive and people in far flung
areas could ill afford to reach this Court. Members of the Bar should be
recruited to man the Tribunals an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.