Identifying the ‘Outsider’ orders issued under s 3A of the Foreigners Act, 1946 concerning exemptions from the application of foreigners orders are required to be tabled before parliament. This shows a complete lack of parliamentary control over delegated legislation with respect to a legislation dealing with arrest, detention and internment. B Selecting Members for the FT While scholars have disagreed on the precise content of the rule of law, 70 there is no denying that the existence of an independent and a capable court or tribunal to protect a person from arbitrary laws or the arbitrary application of laws is central to the rule of law. The degree of independence of the court or tribunal is to be determined with reference to the domestic law, the constitution and any applicable principle of law that governs the field. Capability again is subjective, but experience shows that across statutes under the Indian legal system, offences involving minor punishments are adjudicated upon by a magistrate who, whilst having prescribed legal qualifications, has lesser judicial experience and training than those adjudicating offences involving major punishments, who are not only senior in age but also in judicial experience and judicial training. The necessity of having competent and qualified judges flows from the principle of the rule of law that requires adjudication to be made by capable judges who have the requisite skills and who have undergone training to reduce any chances of error. The absence of any of these would affect the legitimacy and moral authority of the judicial power of the state. The capability of a judge in a given context is framed with reference to merit, legal training, judicial training and experience as a judge. In India, this is captured in differing qualifications for appointments as a magistrate, sessions judge, judge of the High Court and judge of the Supreme Court. Similarly, a specified qualification has been prescribed for appointment of members to various tribunals that requires them to hold specified judicial experience. Thus, for instance, those chosen to preside in tax tribunals must have training and experience in the administration of tax system and adjudication of the tax regime. The Constitution has permitted ‘tribunalisation’ on the premise that an ‘expert’, to determine technical issues, would provide speed and accuracy to the adjudication process. 71 It is for this reason that areas of law such as the recovery of money, possessions, marriage and divorce are still reserved for ordinary courts and areas such as tax, anti-trust, employment matters, etc have been transferred to specialised tribunals. 70 71 See Svend-Erik Skaaning, ‘Measuring the Rule of Law’ (2009) 63(2) Political Research Quarterly 449; Mila Versteeg and Tom Ginsburg, ‘Measuring the Rule of Law: A Comparison of Indicators’ (2017) 42(1) Law & Social Inquiry 100. UDHR (n 46) art 8 provides: ‘Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law’. L Chandra Kumar v Union of India [1997] 3 SCC 261 (Supreme Court of India) [88] (emphasis added): A Tribunal which substitutes the High Court as an alternative institutional mechanism for judicial review must be no less efficacious than the High Court. Such a tribunal must inspire confidence and public esteem that it is a highly competent and expert mechanism with judicial approach and objectivity. What is needed in a tribunal, which is intended to supplant the High Court, is legal training and experience, and judicial acumen, equipment and approach. See also T C A Anant and Jaivir Singh, ‘Structuring Regulation: Constitutional and Legal Frame in India’ 41(2) Economic and Political Weekly 121. 124