Home > Recent Judgements >High Courts Cannot Substitute for Tribunals in Judicial Review: Analysis at the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Bank of Baroda vs. Farooq Ali Khan
Feb 21, 2025
High Courts Cannot Substitute for Tribunals in Judicial Review: Analysis at the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Bank of Baroda vs. Farooq Ali Khan
The judicial system of India is built on a careful balance between the powers of the courts and the functions of specialized tribunals. Tribunals, created by legislative bodies, are intended to handle specific types of cases that require specialized knowledge and expertise. However, the scope of judicial review by the High Courts, especially under Article 226 of the Constitution, has often raised questions about whether they can overstep their jurisdiction to intervene in matters that fall within the domain of statutory tribunals. The recent ruling by the Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Farooq Ali Khan provides valuable insight into this issue, affirming the primacy of tribunals in handling complex cases such as insolvency matters.
Case Background
The case involved a dispute between Bank of Baroda and Farooq Ali Khan, a personal guarantor, regarding the initiation of personal insolvency proceedings. The Bank had invoked provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), aiming to initiate proceedings against Khan. The matter was referred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the specialized body created to handle insolvency cases. However, before the proceedings could proceed, the Karnataka High Court quashed the Bank’s action, citing various reasons that touched upon both procedural and substantive issues.
This order from the High Court effectively halted the insolvency proceedings, impeding the legal process. The decision raised important questions about the jurisdictional reach of the High Courts, particularly in matters involving statutory tribunals like the NCLT, which is entrusted with the expertise and responsibility of overseeing insolvency-related matters under the IBC.
The Supreme Court’s Judgment
In response to the Karnataka High Court’s premature quashing of the proceedings, the Supreme Court intervened and set aside the High Court’s order. The Court emphasized a critical point: High Courts should not substitute their judgment for that of specialized tribunals when the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of such tribunals.
The Supreme Court recognized the expertise and the purpose of tribunals like the NCLT, noting that they were specifically established to address the complex and technical aspects of insolvency and bankruptcy. The Court also pointed out that the specialized nature of such bodies makes them better equipped to handle the intricacies of financial and corporate law, compared to High Courts that have a broader, more general jurisdiction.
The ruling, therefore, underscores an important principle of the judicial system in India: while the High Courts have the power to exercise judicial review, they must exercise restraint when it comes to cases that are within the purview of tribunals designed to handle specific issues. In this case, the NCLT is tasked with ensuring a fair and efficient resolution of insolvency disputes, and the High Court should not interfere unless there is a clear violation of law or constitutional principles.
The Role of Tribunals in the Indian Legal Framework
Tribunals play a crucial role in India’s judicial system. These quasi-judicial bodies are established to provide specialized and expedient resolution of cases in specific areas of law. Some of the most prominent tribunals include the NCLT (for insolvency and company law), the National Green Tribunal (for environmental matters), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for taxation matters).
The establishment of tribunals was a conscious move by the legislature to address the increasing burden on courts and to provide more efficient and informed decision-making processes in specific legal domains. Tribunals are designed to bring expertise, speed, and cost-effectiveness to particular areas of law, where judges in regular courts may not always have the necessary background or training to handle complex technical issues.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reinforces the idea that these specialized bodies should not be undermined by generalist judicial intervention unless absolutely necessary. High Courts should exercise their power of judicial review under Article 226 in a manner that supports the expertise of these tribunals, rather than substituting their judgment for that of the tribunal.
The Doctrine of Judicial Review and Its Boundaries
The doctrine of judicial review grants the High Courts the power to review the actions of statutory authorities, including tribunals. This power is an essential part of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that the actions of public authorities remain within the bounds of the law. However, judicial review is not an invitation for the High Courts to substitute their decisions for those of specialized bodies.
In the context of tribunals, judicial review should be exercised sparingly. The High Court may intervene if there is an error of law, a breach of natural justice, or if the tribunal’s decision is ultra vires (beyond its legal powers). However, the Court should avoid re-evaluating factual matters or substituting its opinion for that of the tribunal, especially when the tribunal is empowered by law to make decisions based on its expertise in a particular field.
Conclusion: The Importance of Upholding Tribunal Integrity
The Bank of Baroda vs. Farooq Ali Khan judgment is a timely reminder of the importance of respecting the jurisdiction of tribunals in India. The decision highlights the need for specialized bodies like the NCLT to function independently and without undue interference from the High Courts. It is critical that tribunals are allowed to fulfill their role in the legal ecosystem, providing timely and expert adjudication in areas like insolvency law, where speed and expertise are paramount.
For the judicial system to remain efficient and effective, it is necessary to recognize the distinct roles of courts and tribunals. High Courts should not overstep their bounds by substituting their judgments for those of specialized tribunals. Instead, they should exercise judicial review within the limits prescribed by law, ensuring that the integrity of tribunals and their expertise are upheld.
This case reinforces the importance of a collaborative approach between the judiciary and tribunals, where both work in tandem to ensure that the law is applied correctly and efficiently. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it will be crucial to maintain this delicate balance, preserving the functionality and specialization of tribunals while ensuring that the judiciary remains a guardian of constitutional values.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
