The Supreme Court of India on Thursday raised serious concerns over the functioning of tribunals, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stating that tribunalization has turned into a “mess” and that tribunals have increasingly become a “liability.”
The observations were made during hearings concerning the extension of tenure of tribunal members after the Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The bench comprised the Chief Justice along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.
The Chief Justice noted that tribunals are currently operating in a “no-man’s land,” lacking effective accountability mechanisms. He observed that these bodies are neither fully accountable to the judiciary nor subject to adequate oversight, resulting in systemic deficiencies.
Highlighting irregularities, the chief justice stated that he had received credible information regarding serious issues in a financial tribunal. According to him, certain technical members were not drafting judgments themselves. Instead, they were asking judicial members to write orders in their names, and in some cases, judgments were allegedly outsourced.
Addressing the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, the Chief Justice remarked that tribunals, created by the Union government, have now become problematic for both the executive and the judiciary. He stated that constitutional courts are increasingly burdened due to the quality of tribunal orders and the rising number of challenges against them.
The court also observed that tribunalization has affected the exposure of High Court judges to specialized areas of law. Matters relating to insolvency under the IBC, environmental law, and commercial disputes are largely handled by tribunals, limiting judicial experience at the High Court level.
The bench was hearing matters arising from 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, where directions were issued regarding tribunal appointments and tenure.
While the Court indicated that it was not inclined to grant blanket extensions to tribunal members, it observed that the continued vacancies compelled interim measures. The Bench recalled its earlier direction to the Union government to provide a concrete roadmap for tribunal reforms.
As an interim arrangement, the Court directed that the tenure of existing chairpersons and members of tribunals be extended until further orders, pending compliance with its directions on tribunal reforms.
