The first batch of B.Tech students will pass out in the next couple of months from six new IITs but they will not get their degrees unless Parliament passes an Amendment Bill. M.Tech students who completed their course in IIT Hyderabad last year have not yet been awarded their degrees. The Institute of Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2010 is listed for consideration and passing in the Rajya Sabha on April 30, 2012 along with the National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2010. Both Bills were passed in the Lok Sabha in 2011. Both Bills confer the status of institutions of national importance to a number of new institutions, which implies that they have the power to award degrees (other technical institutions have to be affiliated with a university to be able to award degrees). These institutions cannot award degrees until Rajya Sabha also passes the Bill, the President gives assent and the central government brings it into effect through a notification. Power to grant degrees The Ministry of HRD established six new Indian Institutes Technology (IITs) in 2008 and two in 2009. It also established five new Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs). However, they are still awaiting for the power to be recognised as degree granting institutions. Entry 64 of the Union List states that only Parliament can declare an institution to be an institution of national importance (see here and here). Also, the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 states that the right to confer degrees can be exercised only by a university, deemed university or any institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to do so. According to news reports, students of the new IISERs who passed out in 2011 have not received their degrees because of the legislative delay. Similar problems were reported by students in IIT-Benaras Hindu University. The students of the new IITs, which were set up in 2008 would be passing out this year. It is likely that they would face similar problems. In fact, IIT-Hyderabad is already in the news for not being able to award degree to its Masters students. Highlights of the Bills The Institute of Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2010 amends the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961, which declares certain Institutes of Technology to be institutions of national importance by adding eight new Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) in Bhubaneshwar, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad, Indore, Jodhpur, Mandi, Patna, Ropar. It also seeks to integrate the Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) within the ambit of the Act. All these institutions shall be declared as institutions of national importance (see here for a Bill Summary). The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on HRD, which raised a few issues with regard to lack of clarity about the zone in which IIT-BHU shall be operating, the need to preserve the autonomy of the IITs and the need to fulfil qualitative parameters before the new IITs could transform into institutes of national importance (see here for the Standing Committee Report and a Summary). The National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2010 amends the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 to add a schedule of five Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISER) (established in Kolkata, Pune, Mohali, Bhopal and Thiruvananthapuram). These institutions shall be declared to be institutions of national importance. Currently, there are 20 institutions listed as institutions of national importance under the 2007 Act (see here for a Bill Summary). The Standing Committee Report on the Bill made a few recommendations: (a) the composition of the Board of Governors should be made more expert specific in with the mandate of IISERs; (b) IISER Council should have less number of Secretaries, and (c) details of the inter-disciplinary knowledge regime should strive toward flexibility and freedom in research (see here for the Standing Committee Report and a Summary).
Tribunals function as a parallel mechanism to the traditional court system. Tribunals were established for two main reasons - allowing for specialised subject knowledge in disputes on technical matters and reducing the burden on the court system. In India, some tribunals are at the level of subordinate courts with appeals lying with the High Court, while some others are at the level of High Courts with appeals lying with the Supreme Court. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament may create an alternative to High Courts provided that they have the same efficacy as the High Courts. For an overview of the tribunal system in India, see our note here.
In April 2021, the central government promulgated an Ordinance, which specified provisions related to the composition of the search-cum-selection committees for the selection of members of 15 Tribunals, and the term of office for members. Further, it empowered the central government to notify qualifications and other terms and conditions of service (such as salaries) for the Chairperson and members of these tribunals. In July 2021, the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the Ordinance (such as the provision specifying a four-year term for members) stating that these impinged on the independence of the judiciary from the government. In several earlier judgements, the Supreme Court has laid out guidelines for the composition of Tribunals and service conditions to ensure that these Tribunals have the same level of independence from the Executive as the High Courts they replace.
However, Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 in August 2021, which is almost identical to the April Ordinance and includes the provisions which had been struck down. This Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court. For a PRS analysis of the Bill, please see here.
On 16th September 2021, the central government notified The Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. A couple of the provisions under these Rules may contravene principles laid out by the Supreme Court:
Appointment of the Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal as the Chairman
In case of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Rules specify that a person with at least three years of experience as the Judicial Member or Administrative Member may be appointed as the Chairman. This may violate the principles laid down by the past Supreme Court judgements.
The CAT supplants High Courts. In 1986, the Supreme Court stated that if an administrative tribunal supplants the High Courts, the office of the Chairman of the tribunal should be equated with that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Therefore, the Chairman of the tribunal must be a current or former High Court Judge. Further, in 2019, the Supreme Court stated – “the knowledge, training, and experience of members or presiding officers of a tribunal must mirror, as far as possible, that of the Court it seeks to substitute”.
The Administrative Member of the CAT may be a person who has been an Additional Secretary to the central government or a central government officer with pay at least that of the Additional Secretary. Hence, the Administrative Member may not have the required judicial experience for appointment as the Chairman of CAT.
Leave Sanctioning Authority
The Rules specify that the central government will be the leave sanctioning authority for the Chairperson of tribunals, and Members (in case of absence of the Chairperson). In 2014, the Supreme Court specified that the central government (Executive) should not have any administrative involvement with the members of the tribunal as it may influence the independence and fairness of the tribunal members. In addition, it had observed that the Executive may be a litigant party and its involvement in administrative matters of tribunals may influence the fairness of the adjudication process. In judgements in 1997 and 2014, the Supreme Court recommended that the administration of all Tribunals should be under a nodal ministry such as the Law Ministry, and not the respective administrative ministry. In 2020, it recommended setting up of a National Tribunals Commission to supervise appointments and administration of Tribunals. The Rules are not in consonance with these recommendations.
