 we requested the most fascinating fact with Justice Kuthari is he's always ready which only shows the volume of knowledge which he has and those who have been connected with Beyond Law CLC they know this fact that he has done various webinars with us and we are so proud of that fact that Justice Kuthari in his professional journey as a lawyer first then they judge and then again the lawyer they say that the lawyer maybe even if you are a judge it never dies it keeps on the spirit continues to live on and that's one of the factor which shows that so many judges after demitting their office come back to the practice because the law lawyer are such key instruments in helping the society at large that it's always happening to see such buses coming back to the platform your request Justice Kuthari the former acting Chief Justice to share his knowledge over to you sir we have pleasure having connected with you again over to you thank you because it's a great pleasure and honor beyond CS is a part of life I'm happy to be lawyer again after my 16 years innings as a judge in four eye courts and I was lucky to serve for high courts of the country all the four big high courts or webinars whenever I participate either as a speaker or as a delegate or as a listener also I feel happy because as a student of law one keeps on learning by preparing for these webinars whenever the topic is decided or whatever and I must acknowledge here in the beginning itself that my research team even though they are not presently physically in my office whenever I was judged in different courts have very kindly and very actively I've been assisting me and I drop on their resources anytime so even if I midnight or I tell them to make some research they will be very happy to do it and within 24 hours I will have something and I would like to name a few of them because they have been wonderful persons my friends younger friends who in different parts of country have been helping me Meval and Pradeep from my office of course then Gitanjali Meghna Jagrat Haley and Pallavi Modi all these people are ever ready to assist me on whatever topic because you know as a I would not say I'm old person as a young person of 62 I may be taxiing but not that much as these young people are and they have different resources at their hand to find out material on any topic and the present today's theme also they were nice enough to supply much of the material to me and as a judge and as a lawyer again as Vikasi has rightly said I am happy to churn that material in my mind and then share some of the thoughts with you learned people from the fraternity so that as a institution or as a community 60 70 80 years whatever the God gives us it is a great thing to happen to us is he spirit kisad me ne aaj ki topic ko because the kisad take hiya tha ki hum kuz terminals or fast track codes ke baare main baat karen jo ki specialization if I can tell you 1941 income tax ablet terminal was the first especially tribunal to be established even before independence and after independence actually the tribunalization versus codes has been a great debate going on kya tribunals banana say hiya kya tribunals effectively apna rule kar pa rahi hain kithani tribunals hain indian after all kithani tarahi tribunals hum lo india main litigants or taxpayers or disputants ko serve karne ke liye banai hain aur unki aaj ki sitik kya hain? Lok kya se benefit hon hain? Are they really working nicely efficiently and delivering timely justice and what kind of problems they are facing? What kind of pendency they are facing? Are they usual run-of-the-mill kind of dispensations or they are really effective systems put in place by the government to help the litigants and create an atmosphere of justice delivery in country so that ultimately ease of business as they say and for peace in the society as is required which is the very purpose of the justice delivery system. Is it achieved or not achieved? Is the theme around which we will be discussing? I will of course speak in both the languages English and Hindi as discussed and promised to Mr Vikasi because there are audience from all parts of the country and you can send your questions on checkbox or you can send in the checkbox of course and towards the end of the talk or you can raise hands switch on your video and then come on the screen and talk directly to me also there's no issues about that we are not restricted or in that manner anyways and therefore it will be a pleasure to interact with you all friends and learn more and then I think drive my talk today on the tribinals towards a better direction. So let me first give a brief idea about the special course and tribinals in our country. Now there are two types of tribinals or special course which we have in this country India. One is the articles 323 capital A and article 323 capital B tribinals as provided in the constitution as you might be knowing article 323 capital A provides for creation of the administrative tribunal. Administrative tribunals means working in service jurisprudence for the resolution of the disputes of the employer employees. Now CAT as you know central administrative tribunals in 1985 act 1986, administrative tribunals act was created which with a great lot of it was felt that by going through this tribunal service jurisprudence or service disputes load on normal courts or high courts or labor courts or district courts will be able to be offloaded or expeditious disposal. In 1986 I myself was the standing consul of the income tax department for a long time when I was there and it was very good. In the beginning I can say that CAT performance was very good. I will not be ineffective in today's date but there are some reasons which plate all the tribunals in one way or the other. The problems that are caused by diseases are common factors that most people know but we will discuss and try to suggest some solutions for these problems so that the tribunals can really be effective substitutes what the government or parliament thought of making these tribunals or fast like special courts to be real substitutes of the normal courts like civil courts or district physics court or even high court in normal restriction. So what could happen or could not happen, we will discuss about it. So 323 A administrative tribunals, 323 capital B can be the tribunal parliament of special laws like tax, labor, special field. So in that all your NGT, this is special statutory tribunal. The second concept is article 323 and if you remember in 323, the tax tribunals which were made in between are around 2000. Every state legislature belongs to Rajasthan and Rajasthan's tax tribunal, RTT, they could go on for a few years, I don't know for what reason, its political background can be there or non-effectiveness can be there and then some judgments like the Supreme Court of El Chandrukumar's 7 judges' judgment came, he said that if you have taken away the jurisdiction of high court and made the tribunals, even if you have supervised the jurisdiction under article 227 and 226, the high court will have power to issue rits against the judgments and orders of these tribunals and that created a sort of one more tier for the litigants in this area of tribunals and that further long process has to be done because after going into rits, the high court has its own schedule, its own business, its own workload, according to which they have to take more time. One problem which I as a judge, as a lawyer, talk about multiple tiers of remedial procedures in this country is a serious problem which we all should think and try to do something about it. We have at least three or four layers of the remedial measures starting from the lowest or lowest court to higher one appellate jurisdiction than high court situation either in appeal side, revision side or rits side. Three avenues are provided and then further intra-court appeal in the high court itself, so two tiers in high court itself, then third and final goes to Supreme Court, under article 136 or regular appeal on the certificate of appeals given by the high court. These multiple tiers of appeals and revisions and judicial review if you can broadly call them is not in my humble opinion good because of sheer length of time which is spent in this. I feel maximum one and in rare cases second judicial review is enough, nothing more than that is required. Ultimately, you have to keep faith on trained judicial officers. If there is any deficiency in them, they will have to give proper training. And the main criticism of the administrative terminals today is that judicial trained minds or judges, they are constantly only half of the strength of the tribunal, remaining half is from the technical members they are calling, they are mostly bureaucrats and they are mostly from the other side of the services. But his training be a judicial training centers, judicial academics are in India, on national level, Bhopal and in every state, there should be very rigorous training in everything. So, if there is assimilation, so the purpose of the special tribunals is that every subject has a special tribunal, then the trained judicial officers and trained benches, trained judges or trained members, they can properly dispute that. So, this purpose was very good, it was a pious, it was a very fair and objective. But in practice, we are seeing from the last 20 years that the situation in the tribunals is almost not complete, it is the same in the normal courts, it is overloaded vacancies, overloaded pendency, the situation is very long, the procedures are complicated and as I said, the famous history of the judiciary is happening in the tribunals as well. In today's history, I have examined the cases of NCLT, NGT, etc., so even there, the situation cannot be called very good. And the very important law that NCLT deals with is IBC, whose very purpose was to clear the backlog of the NPAs, non-performing assets. Today, the economy's backbone is business or trade or industry. If NCLT's cases go on for 2-3-4 years, and the company's mismanagement of non-performing assets is due to the lack of production, the users of assets, whether you are making committee of creditors, whether you are putting insolvency resolution professionals, whether you are putting anything, it suffers. And it does not have a quick resolution, it is a very big setback. The concept is that you should quickly solve the cases of NCLT, IBC, and bank recovery. For bank recovery, you see right from the original stage of filing of civil suits, which before DRT had came in 1986, it used to be there, DRT had came, you created DRAT and DRT, that recovery tribunal appellate track. What happened there? Ultimately, they failed, they failed to deliver. Then you thought of SurfaceEI 2002. SurfaceEI came, again there were blockages, like you have blockages in your heart, veins and other veins, they also could not deliver. The problem of non-performing assets, non-realization of the news, change of management, efficient management, major defaults, major frauds, etc. Everything continued. You can go on creating forums and institutions and fast-track specialized schools. But unless you have the adequate number of judges to men, and not only adequate number, properly trained specialization holding people like Charter Contents in the case of this NCLT. Now very few, I am fortunately a Charter Content also, so I am in touch with some people who are CAs, now members of the NCLT. But they are far in view in between. Mostly the complaint is that the people who are mening these tribunals are not really in green with that subject. Now that is the problem. Unless you have a subject specialized person to deliver, to decide, to hear those complicated complex problems of law as well as facts, how can you deliver? So these are some kind of problems which are very interesting in the working of the internals. They are being made to cry. So right now I was trying to research some material with the help of my team. They say there are exact number of total tribunals in the country, no source is given. Now as per Wikipedia, I found out that there are 14 tribunals presently working under specialized law in this country. I may just name them so that you can just have a broad idea what kind of tribunals we are talking about. Industrial tribunal, income tax ablet tribunal, customs exercise and service tax tribunal, appellate tribunal under smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators said, administrative tribunals, railway claims tribunals, securities appellate tribunal, debt recovery tribunal, telecom dispute settlement and appellate tribunal, national companies law appellate tribunal and NCLT of course, national consumer dispute redressal commission, appellate tribunal for electricity, armed forces tribunal, national internals. Now these are all tribunals which are created either in a specific law or article 323a and 323b of the constitution. Now just a brief distinction between these two type of tribunals. Article 323a and b tribunals were more closer to the features of the courts. The main difference between courts and tribunals is they being the court of record and having power to issue contempt. So if you are a court of record, if you have power to punish somebody for the breach of your orders then you are a court. Otherwise short of these you may have all judicial powers to educate but you will remain a tribunal. As per El Chandrukumar's judgment you will remain subject to supervisory jurisdiction of the high court. El Chandrukumar said division bench of high court will have 227 and 226 powers over the orders of all the tribunals. Even though the provisions of the act under which these tribunals were created specifically excluded the jurisdiction of the high court and provided for a direct appeal to the supreme court either in the article 136 of the constitution a self jurisdiction or certificate of minutes. But in today's history litigants are so desperate, so quick justices ask for an easy remedy, quick remedy in the high court. But my little experience, 20 years lawyer and 16 years judge, it is easy to come to the high court and the debate on the interim leave is also fine. But the time you take for the final decision is your own time and every high court has different busy work schedules. And we are short of judges even in high court. Broadly speaking everybody says 40% vacancy syndrome is going on in high court. Friends, I have a thought on this. Let me share my thought with you here and now. We are in today's date, in the tribunals, vacancies based recruitment process initiate ministry or applications. After inviting the procedure, according to the appointments, the wait list is made or recommendations are made and the final appointing of the government. In my humble opinion, why can't we have a pool or wait listed people ready to be appointed in these chat, take their willingness, see their background, see their subject backgrounds, see their age, health, and prepare a list in advance of twice or thrice the number of vacancies which are there or which are likely to arise in next two to three years. Keep on updating that list by recruitment, by regular selection process. If the government can think little out of box and create a recruitment selection process on the lives of creating a pool of people ready to be appointed to these tribunals, you will never have vacancies syndrome. The moment vacancy is advised or computed or added, you can just request the people in that list to come up and join. Even if serial number one does not join, serial number two, two does not join, three, wait list. So this concept is not alien to service participants, but you have to undertake the process of selection on a regular basis. Retired judges, retired district judges, retired bureaucrats say options really cheap. They decide their criteria, their qualifications. In NCLD, you need a commerce background, you need a banking background, you need a whole list prepared. In NGT, you need a scientist, an engineer, an environmentalist, you need a whole list prepared. You can make a wait list of people, make a pool of people, and completely finish the vacancies syndrome. In my opinion, the concerns and the powers that be should think on these lines. And recently, you know, tribunals reform bill is subject matter of adjudication by the Honorable Supreme Court that's going on, Metros Bar Association, that tooling is still going on, so that that case is still going on. And the Honorable Judge has also suggested creating a NTC, National Tribunal Commission, where all these appointment process will be supervised. So, this is the difficulty of today's tribunal, the backlog, the pendency, the delivery is not happening, the faster disposal is not happening. The main reason for this is that you don't want men power, trained judges to be there, they are not in that number. So, you need to plan for the future, look at the present, fill up the vacancies, till you don't have vacancies, you won't fill up, till then how will you expect? I think on an average, a tribunal or an institution has a workload of 1,000 cases. With my experience, I can say so. 1,000 cases, depending on which NCRT, you may have 100 cases, but if a normal case is more than 1000 cases, then you can't circulate it every 2-3 months. And in every place, there are urgent cases, there are interim applications, there are urgent applications, there are some orders. So, all these things work as an interim message. If there is a workload of more than 1000 cases, then you should have a system to create an additional code for it. All these things should already be laid in the rules, so that it keeps working and working, and in a normal process, people can get selected and you can keep them appointed. Now, let me come back to the working of these tribunals in our country. Friends, to my understanding, the tribunals all have been given liberty not to follow the procedures of the normal civil court. They can evolve their own procedures, they can make their own rules, rules have been provided for them, and they are not strictly bound by the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code. The Civil Procedure Code 1908, as we all know, is rather ill-famous for lengthening the trial itself. That is why these tribunals have been given power and liberty to escape, to escape or to shorten or cut shop these procedures to suit their own requirements. After that, broadly, to comply with the principles of the natural justice, fairness, and because the basic principle of justice should not only be done, it should also appear to have been done. So, you have to follow the broadly procedure which has been given in the Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code, but its rigor does not bind the tribunals. And the rules of the tribunals generally give them sufficient freedom. The procedure, time frame, the evidence of affidavit filing, the cross-examination, the process. Now, all the tribunals have started working online during the period of Covid. And they have not taken Covid during today's period. So, now, the online system, almost all courts and tribunals are making it a cynical part of their hearing process. And that's very good, I believe. Because this benefit of technology, we can definitely take it in the court system or judicial dispensation. And if we get a positive lesson of Covid, we have learnt it in 2.5 years. So, we have learnt that you can work online effectively. Even when I worked at PetroCycle.com, I did it from home. I also did it for months from my hometown. Most of the period of Gujarat, I took my word from the chambers at home because of the restriction over there on the going out, etc. So, this is very good, no problem in that. And barring some snacks, some technical issues somewhere. The technology is now, I believe, evolved enough, good enough to provide this forum as an alternative way of addressing the differences. One of my suggestions and tribunals about our hair friends is the minimum tenure. Now, we are talking in this country about the increasing the age of all the judges also. Today, the age of retirement of 60 and 62, I believe is very, very, very impractical, I would say. The time when you have the most matured and experienced judges with good health who can perform very well for the next 5 to 7 years, you send them on and pay them 50% of the salary as pension. The better course would have been to use their services for the next 5 to 7 years, subject to their option, of course. So, a tribunals which has these problems, 67 years or 4 years. Now, recently I was reading an article where they are adding a call that the doctrine of pleasure has been applied in their appointment on. Mr. Arvindata has written a beautiful article and he raised this issue. How can you make the tenure subject to the pleasure of the appointment on? You should give them an assurance of the tenure. So, the tenure in my opinion should be minimum 7 years for the family members and for the chairman or presiding officer or president. Minimum 3 years to really take control and grip of all the institutional matters and then with the concentration of his team he should be able to deal with good results and good policy decisions and good judgments also. So, until you give them the tenure, freedom, ease of working, till then the purpose of the termination of working effective and expeditious disposal of cases of targeted subjects will never be achieved. Therefore, these are the problems that we do for policy makers. And because all of you are the lawyers of legal fraternity, some of them will become judges, some of them will become policy makers and some of them will have at least less interaction. So, you should try to understand this. The working of the termination of the termination of what happens and what happens, when a case comes and you go to a termination, then you will have to read about the procedure there. You will have to paste the file in the same format. You will have to paste the reply, you will have to paste the rejoinder, you will have to argue, etc. There is no need to teach these things in this webinar. This is about the practical field, which any lawyer or law students also if they are specifically studying about those terms can very well understand. The rules are in place. Rules have been framed. And as I said, they are free from the shackles of the CPC and evidence act. Not exactly free, but they work on the broad outlines of these broad laws, procedure laws on which the terms and codes are to function. So, we are saying that on the terms and principles now in terms of NTC there is a consolidation of the terms. The parliament and the laws, the parliament and government have abolished certain terms and consolidated them into new terms. Let me give you some information about that also. And then I'll give you some idea about the leading cases about the journals and generalization of specific subject-specific journals. Firstly, let me give a report from the Department of Justice, which I took out with the help of my research team as I gave them the credit for that. And that is presently 1023 Fast Track Special Course, FTSC Fast Track Special Course, are working in this country since October 2019. And for expeditious travel and out of this 1023, 389 are poxocores, sexual offenses against children. Special course have been created. So, 399 poxocores in 27 states or UTs, which have disposed of 81,462 pending cases, as per report given in February 2022 as latest as this. So, wonderful disposal, 18. You see, if you create subject-specific journals and course, they can be levered, but subject to other factors which we have briefly discussed also. During the financial year 2021-22, a total of Rs. 134.56 crores has been released as central share of funds for functioning of such Fast Track Special Course in states. For the robust implementation of the scheme, this department has created online monitoring framework for monthly monitoring of cases statistics, regular review meetings with the registrations of high courts and state functions are being undertaken. Now, you see, we in this country create a special course sometimes when the emergent situations arise. Now, sexual offenses is one subject, unfortunately, which has become such a burning topic in this country for last 10 years. We resulted in the criminal CRPC amendment law also after Justice Verma's commission report. And special course were created under the special law dealing with Fox's response. Very unfortunate offense, unfortunately, really. But then a special scheme and creation of Fast Track Course under this scheme has brought somewhat satisfactory results also. We should not only criticize something which is happening good in the country also. Because these statistics show up to February 2022, 81,462 Fox's cases decided is a wonderful thing to happen. But friends, on this aspect, one more thought which I always challenge in my mind is that these kinds of offenses will not stop or will not even reduce merely by these kinds of special course or special treatment to these cases. The correction, the improvement has to start elsewhere. And that is in the educational institutions, right, from primary level to college. I have been saying this with a great sense of pain in my heart everywhere that this country's psyche of the youth has to be changed drastically if you want to prevent these kinds of offenses. Therefore, a very serious thought has to be given besides when we as judges and lawyers deal with these kind of subjects in webinars and conferences. Somebody else also has to equally seriously think about reforming our education system with the overall. Teaching moral education, good civic sense, good sense towards behavior towards opposite sex, et cetera, are the things which are taught firstly by parents and elders in the family, and then secondly by the educational institutions which you go to. And the AAC's thought must go there also. This is just besides the point which we are leading in this webinar, but I thought I should give my thoughts to new people so that let us progress and evolve together. Friends, if you have heard of a special course at itself, let us just to clarify the confusion I mentioned this also. The emergency period, 1975 to 77, resulted in a law called Special Codes Bill 1978, on which the President of India under Article 143 of Constitution sought an opinion from the Supreme Court, which they have a liberty to do so under Article 143. They sought the opinion on the constitutionality of the Special Codes Bill, which were to create special codes for dealing with the offenses created or committed during the emergency period of 1975 to 77. Now, the Supreme Court upheld, of course, this constitutionality and gave a very detailed opinion under Article 143 in the case of in-ree special codes 1978 in the judgment reported in ARR 79 Supreme Court page 478. ARR 1979 Supreme Court page 478. Now the Supreme Court gave certain advices, naturally, on reference, you give your advice also. And then some of the points there, just for your clarification of the thought I am giving you, these were the special codes which were later on revealed. This law itself was revealed, so this, they survived only for a special brief period of 234 years. The Supreme Court said that the parliament had less to take competence to enact the law under entries 2A, of list 3, of entry 77, of list 1. Concurrent powers and union powers, both were involved to enact these laws, special law, on which the constitution was not under challenge, but opinion was sought. It also ruled that classification made by the bill was valid and did not influence Article 14 as it classified both offenses and class offenders. The question was whether for a separate class offenders for a specific type of offenses in a specific period, can it be valid to Article 14? The court said, no, it is not valid until 40. The court said that offenses, LS2 have been committed during period of emergency, constitutes a class by themselves. And so do the persons who have utilized the high public offices by them, as cover opportunity to commit those offenses. Thus, there was a close relationship between the basis of classification and object of speedier trial of the bill. Now, generally, you see, we read when we talk about Article 14 violation, what do we say? If the legislation has a rational nexus to the objects or to be achieved, then Article 14 is not violated. And the law in question is held valid on the touchstone of Article 14. That is the legal, central legal position which on which the courts examine the constitutional validity of any law. So on this basis, the honorable Supreme Court in that case said that it's a reasonable class because if you want the speedier trial for a specific type of offenses, nothing wrong with that. The court also held that apart from recruit, requirement of Article 14, the law must be also satisfied. The requirement of Article 21, which requires that the procedure provided for the trial of such offenders must be fair just and reasonable. The court found three procedural defects in the bill. Firstly, there was no provision in the bill for transfer of cases from one special court to another. Secondly, the bill empowered the government to appoint retired high court judges to preside over a special court. Thirdly, the judges were appointed by the government only with the consultation of the Chiefs of India and concurrence. Since all these three procedures are acceptable to the government, the court held that the bill was constitutional. Later on, the special courts repealed in 1982, repealed the special courts at 1979, so three years life period. But since it talked about special courts with which we are talking today, though we are talking more the context of tribunals, not the special courts as such. But as you know, like POXO courts, POXO courts are nothing but separately designating some senior civil judges or district judges as the POXO courts. And then the specific offenses of sexual offenses again, children below the specified age. So this specialization of the tribunals, creating of the fast-track codes in the system, within the system, has been a concept which has been in vogue for quite a number of years. In the other sun also be a fast-track course, later on they were repealed. I don't know why. But fast-track codes creation is a good thing to happen. At least you have a targeted system of justice delivery. And you can always hold those people accountable if they are not delivering in a fast-track manner. So specialization is okay, nothing wrong about it. But there are always some caveats, some assumptions, some guiding notes which should be fulfilled for even these fast-track codes. As I've said, full manpower, trained properly, case law not to be that big as is usually available in the civil courts. We now have around four or four crore cases and 70% of them in the district courts, 20%, 25% in the high courts, 25 high courts, and then remaining with your new city. So if you can, if you will keep the workload higher than the humanly possible thing, then delays are bound to happen. So whenever people ask us why is there a lot of delay? So I said you can work 8 hours a day. What do you expect from the judges? On and on, I think every judge works 12-13 hours a day. So how can you expect more humanly possible and impossible things? So the size of infrastructure should be five times, ten times. On the same institution or on the same team, how much workload will you put? Then how will you expect expeditions? So all these things should be embedded in the system. How much is the ideal workload? How much workload is existing? How much is expected in the future? We have seen a lot of reports in the Law Commission about the impact of new legislations on the creation of new courts. A lot of reports and courts are full of these recommendations. But where is the implementation? Section 138 of the NIA, which created almost impossible burden on our district judiciary, is an example. You suddenly made it a criminal offence dishonor of check. And all cases got transferred. You created commercial courts at 2015 Act. All cases transferred to designated courts. Same people. Today you call districters to go to the commercial court and hold his court. Tomorrow he comes back to district court and does his normal, what is the difference? So when you create a legislation which will require a specific justice dispensation, where is the provision of the staff and the district? Where is the budget for that? It doesn't happen. I have experienced it somewhere in 30 years. Even the high courts had to look to the finance secretary of the state for release of the budgets. Of course, they were cooperative. But then you have to tell them. Financial autonomy of the judicial institutions is another aspect which requires a serious thought. You will make an institution straddles from the name and if you don't give it finances to make it effective. So it happened that you give a bottle of water for thirsty and you won't get water. How will you do the work? These things are of the thought of the government. But until we don't raise our voices, we will give legal fraternity. Who are you going to give it to? So when you talk about feminism that you make a specific thing for the subject it will be done soon. It won't happen. There is no magic about it. If you keep the same judiciary engaged for Adam's works, how can they deliver better? Therefore, the government has to seriously consider the creation of the suitable infrastructure for the specialized standard also. And above all, a very transparent and quick procedure for many of those terms. At the beginning of my address I said a pool system should be created. Like take the example of arbitrations. Today now with the 2015 amendment you have the institutional arbitrage to be encouraged. All arbitration centers maintain their panel of arbitrage with their profiles with them. Whenever there is a special type of arbitration which is suitable for the background it comes in front of them. They suggest two or three of those panels. Parties can pick up. And parties cannot agree. Section 11 court will pick up. So when you have a panel available you will be able to do something like this. You don't have a panel. When your vacancies are determined you notify that you need so many members for certain vacancies. Who has come, apply. So when that procedure starts and ends, it takes a year until its work is completed. Why can't you do it in advance? Why can't you keep a pool of members, district judges, chartered accountants, lawyers, court judges, former court judges to be ready for taking up these jobs. On vacancy you will be notified if you are willing to come otherwise next man will come. So a thought has to be given to these friends. And now hopefully the Tribunal's reform will 2021 act, it has been now made an act. But since it is under challenge under scrutiny or under judicial review by the almost Supreme Court creates this bench now. Hopefully after vacations it will be taken up. So let us hope that something wonderful, something good, something practical will come out of all this and we will be able to have the real sense effective Tribal's in the country. Ultimately you see you are creating the project of the country, ease of business, ease of justice, ease of access of justice and deliver justice on an international perspective. Today when you go to international conferences and talk to each other then are you in the state of saying that there can be a final decision in 6 months of any problem? I think we are not in the state of saying that. The small experience that has happened is not in the state of saying that. Why not? It is possible. We have no shortage. We have no shortage of resources. We have no shortage of talent. We have no shortage of infrastructure. If there is a little shortage then we will be able to do something. So I think that today's if there is a difference of 2% from my stock then its purpose is achieved. So the theme we have decided for today is that fast track goes whether they are really fast track whether they are different. They are different. You have made them subject to it. But fast track, after all the analysis I think I cannot say that it has become fast track. And until you are not able to do fast track then its purpose will not be achieved. This is my understanding of today's study. Now if I come to Mr. Vijay sir then he takes it or he wants to ask himself What do you guys think? Sir, two issues which normally people discuss about is number one is like I will give an example after TMA Pai it said that for the education tribunal you constitute a tribunal. Now in Punjab they have created a tribunal wherein we are sometimes docked with this issue that there is a member or like it's a three member. All three are not appointed in one time which is normal post in any tribunal which issue arises is. So what happens is one member has demitted the office because his tenure they don't start together. So let's assume it's a judicial member, administrative member. So in that case not only on education tribunal on all other tribunals I will say the problem arises is that one judicial member is there but the administrative members he has demitted his office because of the tenure being over. Similarly sometimes one is on leave since there are only three members or two members the quorum is not complete. So one of the remedy could be what people normally suggest about this like I was taking example from education tribunal. In Haryana they have appointed the district judge to perform the duties of the education tribunal. It has notified and delegated those parts. So one way would be like judges of the High Court adjudicate all the issues. Similarly tribunals which they feel that a single member can do it it can they comment can think of because the district judges have the full tenure up to the age of the superannuation. So it is a seal of perpetual succession they will come, they will be never the staff of the stenography, et cetera is not there which in tribunals this issue also rises because sometimes it so happens there's one post the steno is retired. So everything comes to an end clock. In tribunals we have seen that you have said that you send the case to the district judge and the steno will be there and everything will be done. This is not right. Or like what we have in income tax tribunal the all officers should have been up to the age of 62 rather than having the members having tenure of five to six years we can have tribunals which have the and all India Carter which can be transferred and it has the full tenure. Otherwise this issue a judicial member an administrative member, somebody retiring early and there's no substitute for him then the entire system comes to clock. But thankfully the government after this COVID-19 as you were saying, we have seen in the central administrative tribunal one judicial member is from Chandigarh and another is from Bangalore. They participate in the virtual platform and then that process the work is going on. So these are certain differences where the government has actually worked upon the judiciary has worked upon like in a regulatory commission, earlier it was all physical. I've been participating in the Punjab straight electricity regulatory commission. In that case, it's all virtual. The lawyers participate from pan India. They also the judges do come for a physical appearances but the lawyers are doing. So these are certain things like what I told a case can be taken of central administrative tribunal where one member is from one place and another is from another place. They are doing well. And the government and the Supreme Court where there's a strong will power which and as I say in every experience one learns with a flux of time. These are certain challenges we have come across it can be plugged in. There could be another process that's a personal take from the lawyers with whom we discussed that they could be rather than five years, six years once you know that this tribunal will exist continue up to the age of superannuation. The staff would be a full strength. Now in certain cases since the employment is on the contractual post. In that case also some good staff which is to be attached with the setup cannot also come forth. I mean you have a good point. I would agree with you sir that firstly the infrastructure should be common with the same retirement age. I just say no need to be judge ka kaan toh rukhi kaya na. No, one administrative member is there. One has retired. The judicial member is not there. One judicial member has retired and the administrative member is not there. You have a pool of people ready. You can adopt. One has retired for six months. You can see his work which has been permanent. We can have it on a full tenure. So now the question was one has posted is what is the difference between a special court and exclusive special court? There is nothing like exclusive special court at all. Special court can be under a special statute of three provisions or created on a subject by the high court also like commercial courts that you have created. But you have not created separate cater for them. The presently available district judges or additional judges are being requested to amend the commercial court site. You can get a cater when you find out that you have to make 100 more banana district judges. High court system which you know determines the additional vacancies and joins the additional catering system. Then the recruitment process starts. So the entire year and a year and a half it takes at least a year for the examination process and selection process. Already a judge is a session judgment which said 10% you keep on increasing. That has worked out well. You have created two laws of 10% which you need 100 more judges and what are the 10% benefits? You should not create catering systems. You have created a commercial court site and you know how many cases will be transferred. You have limited 3 lakhs. You know how many cases will be transferred. This can be a computer's mouse. So get the fund of catering system. Until you give it to the community courts how do you want it to be? It is very good. You said about the commercial court that it would be a very good air-conditioned court hall and its waiting hall and its bar room. If you get an international court you should get it. What is the court in Echoingland? The first class is like the Supreme Court's and the trial board's. So you don't have that many financial resources. But if you have a good building, a good air-conditioned air-conditioned chamber and court hall then you will get it. In today's period. Until you create that law you cannot fulfill the purpose of that law. So that is the requirement which the government has to seriously think. In a divided manner if you tackle a problem then it is not complete. Like I suggested, you should create a pool system. So why can't you create a pool system? As long as you have a retired judge in all the terminals then you should take an option in their retirement when you want to service in these terminals. If you want to do it then you should tell your qualifications and come to the interview once in a while. You should put it in the panel. The day you send a letter the person will join in a week. This is the system that you have to think about and create. You will have to think out of box. If you think about it when it becomes a vacancy then you will lose your thirst. Thank you, sir. And that was the only question. Anybody else who is listening and wants to ask I will just check it out. I will just check it out on the YouTube. There is one check box which is there. So that was the only question. Special court and exclusive court. I told you about that. That was the only question. Special court and exclusive court. That was the question I asked you. Vishnu Javara asked this. Yes, sir. I have also seen the check box. So thank you friends for connecting with us and certain suggestions which Justice Kuthari has given that you will be well received. And the judgment of Roger Matthew also shows the path. And as they say that it's all learning, un-churning yourself and learning forward and moving forward. I have a request from you that you should make a memorandum of this webinar and send it to the law ministry. You learn something new in every webinar. This is a good thing. I appreciate that. But then let us do something to reach to the right person or right ministry. Somewhere something will be read I believe and something can happen. No, no. As I say that any idea. The law ministry can be relevant people. You can share the thoughts in a concrete form in a written memo kind of two-page note for them. Let them have something. So we have seen that how the judgment of Roger Matthews how the judgment of Madras Bar Association have given certain situations and we have moved forward. And we are quite sacrosanct that the government and the different courts which have taken things forward. We will continue to evolve and we will improve for betterment. As we have seen that the infrastructure has improved it will do better things from both the executive judiciary and the legislation is coming forth. We are quite sure that things will improve for the betterment. And before we part for the day and we thank Justice Kothari because as usual he shares his knowledge which is immaculate his suggestions. We are quite sure we will hit the right point at the right place. And as we said there could be a fixed tenure of full retirement age the staff strength which is regular rather than contractor would definitely help the things move forward. And tomorrow's session would be uncorrelated evidence of the accomplice, the evolutionary value by Justice Sunil Thomas who is a former judge of Kerala who has committed the office recently. And he was closely associated with the Kerala Judicial Academy. So do stay connected with us tomorrow at 6 p.m. Thank you everyone. Stay safe, stay blessed. And those who have missed our previous webinars can always subscribe, like and share the channel of YouTube. Thank you. Namaskar. Thank you. And thank you sir for sharing your knowledge.