Introduction
The Supreme Court, in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 369, mandated the establishment of a National Tribunal Commission (NTC). This directive was a reiteration of previous calls to consolidate all tribunals under a single ministry, preferably the Ministry of Law, to prevent them from being adjuncts of specific departments. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026, has now operationalized this mandate by instituting the NTC, which comprises a Chairperson, two judicial members, and two technical members. The Chairperson is required to be either a retired Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of a High Court.
Role and Responsibilities of the NTC
The NTC is tasked with overseeing the selection process through a search-cum-selection committee, evaluating tribunal performance, and investigating complaints against members. The Act also mandates the creation of a National Tribunals Data Grid. Despite these advancements, the Act does not place all tribunals under the Ministry of Law and Justice. Notably, the National Company Law Tribunal and GST Tribunals are excluded from its purview, with no rationale provided for this exclusion. A significant portion of the Act relies on delegated legislation, determining qualifications, appointment processes, remuneration, and other service conditions to be “prescribed.”
Challenges Facing the Tribunal System
Tribunals play vital roles across numerous sectors, including company law, taxation, securities, telecom, electricity, environmental issues, armed forces disputes, and consumer and industrial disputes. The efficacy of these tribunals heavily depends on the caliber and independence of their members. Ensuring that the rules address these needs is crucial; otherwise, the reforms may not enhance tribunal functionality.
Term of Office Concerns
One of the Act’s most criticized aspects is the retention of a five-year term for tribunal members, after which they must seek reappointment. This term is a major deterrent to qualified lawyers considering tribunal appointments. Competent legal professionals with significant expertise are unlikely to abandon their practice for a brief tenure. Furthermore, post-tenure, they are barred from practicing before that tribunal. This was pointed out nearly four decades ago by Justice Bhagwati in SP Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124, emphasizing that short terms discourage qualified members from joining. Automatic reappointment, barring any serious allegations, should be considered to address these issues.
Housing and Other Concerns
Housing remains another critical issue. The Madras Bar Association judgment had recommended a housing allowance of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, which benefited many members. Maintaining or improving this allowance is essential to attracting high-quality candidates.
Role of Tribunals in the Judicial System
Tribunals are designed to complement the judiciary by addressing specialized legal matters. However, a lack of domain expertise among tribunal members can undermine confidence in their decisions. Tribunals like the ITAT and CESTAT have been successful due to their members’ expertise and the high quality of their orders. Extending the term to a minimum of 10 years would help attract and retain talented members, moving away from the reliance on post-retirement appointments.
Conclusion
The formation of the NTC marks a significant step forward. However, to improve tribunal effectiveness, a shift away from the current pattern of attracting primarily retired personnel is needed. Arvind Datar, a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, underscores the importance of these reforms in ensuring the quality and independence of tribunal members, which are crucial for the effective administration of justice.
