GS-II: Polity & Governance | Judiciary | Tribunals
Context
- Purpose of tribunals: Tribunals have a raison d’être in the justice system as they allow specialists to settle technical disputes faster than the judiciary.
- Judicial review: In S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987) and L. Chandra Kumar (1997), the Supreme Court held that tribunal decisions remain subject to review by High Courts because judicial review is part of the basic structure.
- Structural flaw: Despite these judgments, tribunals have historically been administered by the same Ministries whose decisions the tribunals might have to review.
- National Tribunals Commission: In Rojer Mathew (2019), the Supreme Court recommended an independent, statutory National Tribunals Commission (NTC) to oversee the selection and administration of tribunals.
- Executive control: Parliament used the Finance Act, 2017 to give the executive greater control over appointments and the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021 to reinstate conditions that the Court had rejected.
- Madras Bar Association judgment: In 2025, the Court struck down objectionable provisions reenacted by Parliament, restored the previous framework, and gave the government four months to establish the NTC.
- Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2026: The Lok Sabha passed the Bill on August 10 without discussion, followed by the Rajya Sabha on August 11.
Positive Provisions
- Five-year terms: The Bill restores the five-year terms for tribunal members.
- Uniform service conditions: It introduces uniform service conditions for tribunal members.
- National Tribunals Data Grid: The Bill includes provisions for a National Tribunals Data Grid.
- Pending appointments: It does not maroon already pending appointments.
Concerns Regarding Institutional Autonomy
- Insufficient autonomy: The Bill still does not provide the NTC with adequate institutional autonomy.
- Section 14: Section 14 leaves the qualifications, manner of selection, salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of tribunal members to future executive rules.
- Delegation of judicial power: In Rojer Mathew, Justice Deepak Gupta held that defining who is qualified to exercise judicial power is an essential legislative function that cannot be delegated to rulemaking.
- Contradiction: Although the Bill claims consonance with the 2025 judgment, it creates room for the type of delegation that the judicial reasoning had resisted.
- Section 3: Experts have also flagged similarly vague language in Section 3.
Complaint Mechanism
- Section 16: Under Section 16, a Ministry will first screen a complaint before it is passed to the NTC for inquiry.
- Continuing executive influence: Although the process is more elaborate than it was in 2021, the Centre continues to appoint the NTC’s members.
- Role of CJI: The Centre only consults the Chief Justice of India for the chairperson and judicial members.
- Financial and administrative control: The Centre also retains substantial influence over the finances and administration of the NTC.
Core Concern
- Conflict of interest: A commission designed to insulate tribunals from executive control cannot itself remain subject to the terms of the executive.
- Continuing failure: The existing framework therefore represents a continuing failure to ensure institutional independence.
- Need for autonomy: The government must make the NTC fully independent by giving up its power to appoint or remove its members at will.
Conclusion
The Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2026 introduces several positive changes, including five-year terms, uniform service conditions and a National Tribunals Data Grid. However, the Bill still leaves substantial executive influence over the appointments, finances, administration and functioning of the NTC. A commission intended to insulate tribunals from executive control must itself possess genuine institutional autonomy.
UPSC Mains Practice Question
Q. “A commission designed to insulate tribunals from executive control cannot itself remain subject to the terms of the executive.” In the context of the Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2026, examine the concerns regarding the institutional autonomy of the National Tribunals Commission.
