Are Tribunals Still Relevant? Rethinking Adjudicatory Design in India

Pavithra Manivannan

No 41, Working Papers from xKDR

Abstract: Tribunals were expected to deliver better outcomes than traditional courts on three counts: speed, expertise, and cost. In practice, they have largely morphed into courts with limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Vacancies, lack of expertise, and procedural delays have eroded their supposed advantage. The result is a fragmented adjudicatory landscape that consumes resources without delivering better outcomes. Reform efforts, whether abolition, consolidation, or design tweaks, have lacked evidence and a holistic perspective of the judicial system. This paper highlights the need for systematic evaluation of tribunals as a starting point and makes the case for building institutional capacity to undertake such assessments. It then draws on examples from the United States and the United Kingdom to propose reform pathways that are sensitive to the nature of disputes and the degree of judicial function they require.

JEL-codes: K K41 K49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 12 pages
Date: 2025-09
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-law and nep-sea
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://papers.xkdr.org/papers/2025Manivannan_indianTribunals.pdf First version, 2025 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:anf:wpaper:41

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from xKDR
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Ami Dagli ().