The National Commission for Women (NCW) was set up as a statutory body under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990. It strives to enable women to achieve equality and equal participation in all spheres of life by securing their due rights and entitlements.
Section 3 of the National Commission for Women Act, mentions the composition of the NCW:

• A Chairperson, committed to the cause of women.
• Five Members from amongst persons of ability, integrity and standing who have had experience in law or legislation, trade unionism, management of an industry potential of women, women’s voluntary organisations (including women activists ), administration, economic development, health, education or social welfare.
  • Provided that at least one member each shall be from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively.
• A Member-Secretary who shall be
  • An expert in the field of management, organisational structure or sociological movement, or
  • An officer who is a member of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or holds a civil post under the Union with appropriate experience

Under Section 10 of the National Commission for Women Act, the commission shall perform the following functions:

• Investigate and examine all matters relating to the safeguards provided for women under the Constitution and other laws.
• Provide an annual report to the Central Government on working of these constitutional and legislative safeguards.
• Provide recommendations for the effective implementation of those safeguards, needed legislative reforms and advise the Government on all policy matters affecting women.
• Take up cases of violation of the provisions of the Constitution and of other laws relating to women with the appropriate authorities, and
• Look into complaints and take suo-moto notice of matters that affect women rights with the Commission having been endowed with powers of a civil court.

Role of the NCW in women empowerment

• The Commission has developed a fully functional online system for registration, processing and resolution of complaints.
• Suo-moto cognizance of offences has resulted in expeditious investigation and also prosecution of perpetrators.
• Providing assistance for resolving matters relating to non-resident Indian marriages in coordination with the Ministry of External Affairs and State authorities.
• Gender sensitization programmes for the police officials to enable them to handle cases involving distressed women in a more compassionate manner.
• It has taken up the issue of child marriage, sponsored legal awareness programmes, and evolved the concept of Parivarik Mahila Lok Adalats. Also, it has reviewed laws such as Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, PNDT Act 1994, Indian Penal Code 1860 and the National Commission for Women Act, 1990 to make them more effective.

However, the Commission faces challenges like inadequate funding, functionary issues, its recommendations only a being advisory, among others. Consequently, to make it more effective, the above issues need to be resolved and provisions for greater powers, finances and training and capacity building need to be undertaken.

Quasi-judicial bodies are authorities, which have powers resembling those of judicial bodies but are restricted to certain areas of expertise. Generally, the function of these bodies is to make the work of the courts easier and to reduce the burden of the local courts. Examples: National Green
Tribunal, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Central Administrative Tribunal, National Human Rights Commission etc.
Similarities between the judicial and quasi-judicial bodies:

• Like courts, these bodies have full power to adjudicate on the matters that come before them.
• Similar to courts, their decisions are binding, with provision of an appeal lying to their order.
• Both are manned by experts from the legal field.
• Both the bodies work with an aim to deliver timely justice to masses.

Although their powers resemble those of the judicial bodies, there are important points of distinction between the two:

• Quasi-judicial bodies are non-judicial bodies, which have the powers of interpreting the law. They are given powers and procedures resembling those of a court of law or judge, and are obliged to provide the basis of an official action.
• They partly function like the court, i.e. they have the power of the courts to adjudicate or pronounce decisions but they are not strictly bound by the procedures that should be followed by the courts.
• Unlike judicial bodies, they are restricted to certain areas of expertise. They are constituted for a special matter with people well versed in their respective streams.
• Quasi-judicial bodies needn’t adhere to strict judicial rules (of procedure and evidence) but the ordinary courts have to strictly adhere to these policies.
• Quasi-judicial bodies can hold formal hearings only if they are mandated to do so as per their governing laws.

Quasi-judicial bodies serve as an important organ in the justice delivery system. They act as a speedy trial mechanism as they deliver justice in a fast manner as the judgements that are usually pronounced by them are speedier and efficient. They have a specific role to play as per their constitution and purpose and play a great role in the smooth functioning of the society.

According to the basic structure doctrine, the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is not absolute and any amendment that tries to change the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution is invalid. However, there is no mention of the term “Basic Structure” anywhere in the Constitution of India. It has evolved gradually over time through many judgements.
The basic structure doctrine is considered as judicial innovation because the content/ framework of basic structure was clarified by the judiciary through the numerous landmark judgements as follows:

• In the Shankari Prasad case (1951), the Supreme Court (SC) held that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights.
• In the Golak Nath case (1967), the SC reversed its earlier stand and ruled that the Fundamental Rights are given a ‘transcendental and immutable position’ and hence, the Parliament cannot abridge or take away these rights.
• The Parliament then enacted the 24th Amendment Act, 1971 and declared that the Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights under Article 368 and such an act will not be a law under Article 13.
• In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the SC overruled its judgement in the Golakh Nath case and upheld the 24th Amendment Act. However, it also laid down the doctrine of the ‘Basic Structure’ of the Constitution, which stated that the Parliament could abridge or take away the Fundamental Rights but not those which form a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the SC upheld that ‘judicial review’ is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution.
• In the Waman Rao case (1981), the SC held that the doctrine will be applied to Constitutional Amendments after the Kesavananda Bharati Case Judgement.
• In Kihoto hollohan vs. Zachillhu, 1992, ‘free and fair elections’ was added to the basic features.
• In Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992, ‘rule of law’ was added to the basic features.
• In S.R Bommai vs Union of India, 1994, federal structure, unity and integrity of India, secularism, socialism, social justice and judicial review were reiterated as basic features.

The final word on the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution has not been pronounced by the Supreme Court. While the idea that there is such a concept as a basic structure to the Constitution is well established, its contents cannot be completely determined with any measure of finality until the Supreme Court clearly lists them. Nevertheless, the sovereign, democratic and secular character of the polity, rule of law, independence of the judiciary, fundamental rights of citizens etc. are some of the essential features of the Constitution that have appeared time and again in the apex court’s pronouncements. However, it has ensured that all laws and constitutional amendments are now subject to judicial review and laws that transgress the ‘basic structure’ are likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. In essence, the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter over and interpreter of all constitutional amendments.

Answer:
The Indian Constitution has several features, which were borrowed from various other countries. For instance, the parliamentary form of government, bicameralism and legislative procedures from the United Kingdom; the fundamental rights, independent judiciary and the process of removal of Supreme Court judges from United States of America; the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in the preamble from France; the Federation with a strong Centre from Canada; the Directive Principles of State Policy from Ireland; and the idea of socio-economic and political justice from erstwhile USSR.
Despite the presence of these borrowed provisions, the Indian Constitution remains unique, as can be observed below:

• Lengthiest written constitution: While the UK had no written constitution, the American Constitution had just seven articles and the Australian Constitution comprised of 128 articles, India gave itself a comprehensive constitution which initially had 395 articles and is now extended to 470.
• Constitutional Sovereignty: Though India adopted a Parliamentary form of government as existed in the UK, it is the Constitution that is sovereign in India and not Parliament. The Indian Parliament cannot give itself a new constitution. It can just amend the existing constitution and that too without compromising on its basic structure.
• Fundamental Rights with restrictions: Unlike the USA, Fundamental Rights granted in India are not absolute. They are subject to certain restrictions. The Indian Constitution seeks to strike a balance between individual liberty and social interests.
• A federal system with unitary bias: The idea of federalism in India is borrowed from the Canadian federal system. However, in India, the Centre becomes strong enough to usurp the power of states only in case of emergency. Under normal circumstances, both the Centre and the states work within the constitutional domain demarcated for them.
• Independent but Integrated judiciary: Unlike the USA, where the federal laws are enforced by the federal judiciary and the state laws are enforced by the state judiciary, the Indian constitution provides for an integrated judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court at the Centre and the High Courts and subordinate courts at the state and district level, which enforce both central as well as the state laws.
• A blend of rigidity and flexibility: In comparison to the constitutions of the USA and Australia, the Indian Constitution is flexible. However, on issues related to centre-state relations, the Constitution is rigid.
• The wider scope of the DPSPs: In India, the DPSPs include not only economic rights as in Ireland, but also principles relating social justice, economic welfare, foreign policy, and administrative matters.

Thus, the Indian Constitution is not merely a borrowed document. It reflects the sagacity and the foresight of the founding fathers who have tailored it according to the needs of the country and its people.

Answer:
Tribunals are judicial or quasi-judicial institutions established by law. They intend to reduce the caseload of the judiciary with faster adjudication. Also they bring in subject expertise for technical matters. They were originally not part of the Indian Constitution. In 1976, Articles 323A and 323B (42nd Amendment) empowered Parliament and State legislature to constitute tribunals.
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 authorises the central government to establish one Central Administrative Tribunal and the State Administrative Tribunal. The Act also makes a provision for setting up of Joint Administrative Tribunals for two or more states.
Differences between Article 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution

• Functionality: While Article 323A contemplates establishment of tribunals for public service matters only, Article 323B contemplates establishment of tribunals for certain other matters like taxation, forex, land reforms, rent and tenancy rights, etc.
• Who can establish: While tribunals under Article 323A can be established only by the Parliament, tribunals under Article 323B can be established by both the Parliament and State Legislatures with respect to matters falling within their legislative competence.
• Hierarchy of Tribunals: Under Article 323A, only one tribunal for the Centre and one for each state or two or more states may be established. There is no question of hierarchy of tribunals, whereas under Article 323B, a hierarchy of tribunals may be created.

Originally, appeals against the orders of these tribunals could be made only in the Supreme Court and not in the High Courts. However, in Chandra Kumar Case 1997, the Supreme Court declared those provisions of these two articles which excluded the jurisdiction of high court and the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Hence, the judicial remedies are now available against the orders of these tribunals. The tribunal system has developed as a parallel to the traditional court system over the last eighty years. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was created in 1941 to reduce pendency of cases in courts. After the insertion of Articles 323A and 323B, several tribunals such as the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as sector specific tribunals were set up from the 1980s to 2010s. The Finance Act, 2017 consolidated several tribunals.