Difference between Court and Tribunal?
IN a judgement delivered on 16th October, the Supreme Court explained,
A Tribunal may not necessarily be a court, in spite of the fact that it may be presided over by a judicial officer, as other qualified persons may also possibly be appointed to perform such duty. One of the tests to determine whether a tribunal is a court or not, is to check whether the High Court has revisional jurisdiction so far as the judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal are concerned. Supervisory or revisional jurisdiction is considered to be a power vesting in any superior court or Tribunal, enabling it to satisfy itself as regards the correctness of the orders of the inferior Tribunal. This is the basic difference between appellate and supervisory jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction confers a right upon the aggrieved person to complain in the prescribed manner, to a higher forum whereas, supervisory/revisional power has a different object and purpose altogether as it confers the right and responsibility upon the higher forum to keep the subordinate Tribunals within the limits of the law. It is for this reason that revisional power can be exercised by the competent authority/court suomotu, in order to see that subordinate Tribunals do not transgress the rules of law and are kept within the framework of powers conferred upon them. Such revisional powers have to be exercised sparingly, only as a discretion in order to prevent gross injustice and the same cannot be claimed, as a matter of right by any party. Even if the person heading the Tribunal is otherwise a "judicial officer”, he may merely be persona designata, but not a court, despite the fact that he is expected to act in a quasi-judicial manner. In the generic sense, a court is also a Tribunal, however, courts are only such Tribunals as have been created by the concerned statute and belong to the judicial department of the State as opposed to the executive branch of the said State. The expression ‘court' is understood in the context of its normally accepted connotation, as an adjudicating body, which performs judicial functions of rendering definitive judgments having a sense of finality and authoritativeness to bind the parties litigating before it. Secondly, it should be in the course of exercise of the sovereign judicial power transferred to it by the State. Any Tribunal or authority therefore, that possesses these attributes, may be categorized as a court.
Tribunals have primarily been constituted to deal with cases under special laws and to hence provide for specialised adjudication alongside the courts. Therefore, a particular Act/set of Rules will determine whether the functions of a particular Tribunal are akin to those of the courts, which provide for the basic administration of justice. Where there is a lis between two contesting parties and a statutory authority is required to decide such dispute between them, such an authority may be called as a quasi-judicial authority, i.e., a situation where, (a) a statutory authority is empowered under a statute to do any act (b) the order of such authority would adversely affect the subject and (c) although there is no lis or two contending parties, and the contest is between the authority and the subject and (d) the statutory authority is required to act judicially under the statute, the decision of the said authority is a quasi judicial decision.
An authority may be described as a quasi-judicial authority when it possesses certain attributes or trappings of a ‘court', but not all. In case certain powers under C.P.C. or Cr.P.C. have been conferred upon an authority, but it has not been entrusted with the judicial powers of the State, it cannot be held to be a court.
