9.16.0 one of the surest means of breathing a new environment in the university system is establishment of a proper grievance redressal machinery. This has already been gone into very elaborately by the Law Commission in the context of decentralisation of administration of justice relating to centres of higher education. In the process, the Commission also had extensive consultations with Vice-Chancellors, academics, university employees and Association of Indian Universities, based on a working paper. The essence of the report of the commission is that the administration of justice in centres of higher education should be tribunalised. For facility of easy comprehension the points made by the Commission in support of tribunalisation are presented below:

(i) In the context of ever increasing complexity of Higher Education due to diversification of educational disciplines and increase in the number of institutions and manpower therein special expertise is required in dealing with disputes. This kind of expertise is not 'normally available in the general legal system. (Reference has been made to the existence of as many as 2000 tribunals of a specialised nature in the UK. Reference has also been made to the recommendations of the Law Commission for establishment of National Tax Courts.)

(ii) Ever increasing volume of work of the ordinary Courts including the High Courts and Supreme Court, consequent on which administration of justice in centres of Higher Education gets badly delayed as in other areas.

(iii) The present situation regarding availability of the Industrial Disputes Act for grievance redressal in Centres of Higher Education is unsatisfactory.

233

(iv) Decentralised system of administration of justice through tribunals, by itself, helps in speedy disposal of cases.

Law Commission on Grievance redressal

9.17.0 The structure recommended by the Law Commission is a three- tier one grass-root level, State level and national level. At the base each, University is to have its own grievance handling forum. (The Commission has, indeed taken note of existence of such mechanisms at present like under the Poona University Act.). These grass-root level institutions are to be participative in nature, giving representation for all the effected interests, disputes concerning admissions, malpractices in examinations, disciplinary action against students, students' complaints against teachers etc. are to come within the jurisdiction of the base-level tribunals. State level tribunals are to have original and appellate jurisdiction. Policy problems are to come within original jurisdiction. The National Educational Tribunal also will have original and appellate jurisdiction. In the three-tier structure, the jurisdiction of all courts upto High Courts is to be excluded. The State Tribunals are to have five members:-

1. A sitting or retired Judge of High Court to be Chairman;

2. Two members from among persons eligible for being appointed as High Court Judges;

3. one member from the ranks of former Vice- Chancellors;

4. one member being an eminent Professor.

The National Tribunal is to have the following composition:

1. Sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court to be Chairman;

2. Two members from among persons eligible for being appointed as Supreme Court Judges;

3. Two members from the ranks of distinguished educationists/former Vice- Chancellors/administrators.

Judicial members of the State/National tribunals could 'be appointed through the proposed National Judicial service commission. Non- judicial members could be appointed by the Governor in consultation with the UGC/President in consultation with the UGC.

234

Recommendation:

The recommendation of the Law Commission in regard to tribunalisation of justice in centres of higher education is pending decision. Early decision on this may be taken by the Government.