Supreme Court Says Tribunals Should Not Become Defunct; Calls for Holistic Framework

The Supreme Court has asked the Union government to place before it in four weeks, a comprehensive and uniform proposal on the functioning of tribunals across the country.

A CJI Surya Kant led bench observed that quasi-judicial bodies cannot be permitted to become dysfunctional or defunct. The bench also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi called for Centre to take a holistic decision on the future of the tribunal system.

"Let the institutions not be defunct. The government has to take a call. Bring a proposal before us for judicial consideration,” observed the bench", it has said.

In the meantime, Supreme Court has allowed Justice Rajesh Khare to continue as Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), stating that these arrangements would continue to ensure that the tribunals do not come to a grinding halt.

Notably last year, Supreme Court had struck down certain provision of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 for violating its earlier judgments on the issue. "The provisions of the impugned Act cannot be sustained as they violate separation of powers and judicial independence principles. It amounts to legislative overwrite without curing any defects and the binding judgment. It falls foul. Thus it is struck down as unconstitutional," a former CJI Gavai led bench ruled.

"The provisions of the impugned Act cannot be sustained as they violate separation of powers and judicial independence principles. It amounts to legislative overwrite without curing any defects and the binding judgment. It falls foul. Thus it is struck down as unconstitutional," a CJI Gavai led bench ruled.

Court called the law to be "legislative overwrite without curing any defects and the binding judgment". CJI had said the 2021 Act falls foul. "We make it clear that members of ITAT shall continue till 62 years and the chairperson shall continue till 65 years of age. We also state member of CESTAT shall continue till 62 and president shall continue till 65. The repeated enactment of same provisions struck down shows the violation of the constitution. We must express our displeasure at how Union of India has chosen not to follow directions issued and instead of following the principle on independence and functioning of tribunals...it has re enacted the same provisions. There is already a pendency of cases and such cases consume valuable judicial time and government must exercise their power with due regards to judicial precedents so that judicial time is used in dispensing justice", the judgment added.

The plea filed before Supreme Court by Madras Bar Association and others has alleged that the section 3(1), 3(7), 5, 7(1) of the Act violates Article 14, 21, 50 of the Constitution of India. Central Government had in its response submitted that Tribunal Reform's Act, 2021 does not violate fundamental rights or any provision of the Constitution and that it is wholly within competency to frame it. The reply filed by the Central Government had said that Act is a culmination of a series of decisions of the Supreme Court and an equal number of statutes and rules in regard to the same matter, which is unprecedented in the history of the Supreme Court. Center had submitted, "It has been held in a series of cases including by two Constitutional Bench decisions and by a 7 judges bench of this Hon'ble Court that basic structure in the Constitution can only be used to test the validity of a Constitutional amendment but has no relevance when it comes to validity of a statue."

The Act dissolved certain existing appellate bodies and transfers their functions to other existing judicial bodies, it also fixed the term of office for the Chairperson and members of Tribunal to 4 years, subject to an upper age Limit for the Chairperson at 70 years and 67 years for other members. It also abolished tribunals and transferred their functions to High Courts. This action added to the pending cases in such High Courts. It abolished Tribunals formulated under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Copyright Act, 1957, Customs Act, 1962, Patents Act, 1970 and Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and transfers pending cases from them will to commercial or civil courts or high courts.

Central Government called the abolished appellate tribunals an "unwanted additional layer of judicial intervention". The lack of human resources (such as inadequate number judges) is observed to be one of the key reasons for accumulation of pending cases in courts. The process of rationalisation of tribunals was started by the government in 2015. Based on functional similarity, seven tribunals were abolished or merged by the Finance Act, 2017, and their total number was reduced from 26 to 19.

Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi and Pancholi

Hearing Date: February 16, 2026