The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticised the functioning of tribunals, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant describing tribunalisation as a “mess” and stating that tribunals have increasingly become a “liability”.
The Chief Justice made these remarks while hearing matters relating to the extension of tenure of tribunal members, after the Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Bench also comprised Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.
Tribunals Operating in a “No-Man’s Land”
During the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed serious concern over the lack of accountability in tribunals. He said that tribunals currently operate in a “no-man’s land”.
According to the CJI, tribunals remain neither accountable to the judiciary nor subject to effective oversight by any authority. This absence of accountability, he said, has resulted in systemic failures.
Technical Members Not Writing Judgments
The Chief Justice revealed that he had received reliable information about grave irregularities in an important financial tribunal. He stated that some technical members were not writing judgments at all.
Instead, they were allegedly insisting that judicial members draft judgments in their names. The CJI further pointed out that certain technical members were even outsourcing the drafting of judgments, a practice he termed completely unheard of in the judicial system.
“Tribunals Are Your Creation”: CJI to Attorney General
Addressing Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, the Chief Justice observed that the Union government had created tribunals and must now deal with the consequences.
He said that tribunals had become a liability for constitutional courts due to the poor quality of orders, flawed functioning, and the growing number of challenges to tribunal decisions.
Impact on High Court Judges’ Exposure
The Chief Justice also highlighted how tribunalisation has affected the exposure of High Court judges to specialised areas of law.
He noted that matters relating to insolvency under the IBC, environmental law, and commercial law now largely lie before tribunals. As a result, High Court judges no longer gain sufficient experience in these fields.
Madras Bar Association Case
The Bench was hearing matters arising out of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (Diary No. 10627/2026 and connected cases). These proceedings follow the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment striking down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
In that judgment, the Court had also issued binding directions on tribunal appointments and tenure.
Interim Extension Due to Vacancies
The Court clarified that it was not inclined to grant blanket extensions to tribunal members. However, it said that persistent vacancies had left it with little choice.
As an interim measure, the Bench directed that the terms of existing Chairpersons and Members of tribunals be extended until further orders. This arrangement will continue until the Union government fully complies with the Supreme Court’s directions on tribunal reforms.
