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.

Are Tribunals Still Relevant? Rethinking Adjudicatory Design in India, Pavithra Manivannan, Chapter 11 in State of Tribunals Report, published by DAKSH, pages 221-232, September 2025.