"Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 establishes National Tribunals Commission amid judicial-executive tensions"
National Tribunals Commission (NTC)
independent oversight body for tribunal appointments, performance review, and disciplinary proceedings under the 2026 Bill
Impermissible legislative override
re-enacting provisions already struck down by the Supreme Court, held unconstitutional as it bypasses judicial pronouncements
Tribunals in India occupy a distinctive constitutional space — they are quasi-judicial forums created to deliver specialised, expeditious adjudication in domains where technical expertise and high case volumes make conventional court processes inadequate. Their constitutional basis lies in Articles 323A and 323B, inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. Article 323A empowers Parliament to create tribunals for disputes relating to recruitment and service conditions of public servants — the basis for the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Article 323B covers a broader range of subjects including taxation, industrial disputes, land reforms, and elections.
The tribunal system expanded significantly over subsequent decades, with specialised bodies such as the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) being established under their respective parent statutes. However, this proliferation occurred without a unified oversight architecture, leading to persistent concerns about inconsistent appointment processes, executive interference in member selection, inadequate infrastructure, and delays that defeated the very purpose of creating specialised forums. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment's basic structure doctrine — which reserves to the judiciary the power to strike down legislation that violates constitutional fundamentals — has been the broader constitutional backdrop against which the executive-judiciary friction over tribunals has played out.
The structural problem with India's tribunal system has always been the dual dependency of tribunals on their parent ministries: for funding, for staffing, and for the appointment of their own members. This dependency created an inherent conflict of interest, since many tribunals adjudicate disputes in which the government itself is a party. The Supreme Court identified this as a threat to the separation of powers and the independence of the adjudicatory process — principles that form part of the Constitution's basic structure.
The friction crystallised with the Finance Act, 2017, which empowered the Centre to frame rules for tribunals. A Constitution Bench struck these rules down in the Rojer Mathew case (2019) for undermining judicial independence. When the Centre notified revised rules in 2020, the Supreme Court recommended modifications — including a five-year tenure for members. Instead, the Centre promulgated an Ordinance in 2021 fixing tenure at four years, setting a minimum appointment age of 50, and requiring selection committees to recommend a panel of two names for the government to choose from. The Supreme Court struck down these provisions as arbitrary. …
With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
1.Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
2.In India, any High Court has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
Which of the following constitutional provisions form the basis for the establishment of tribunals in India?
1.Article 323A — for adjudicating disputes relating to recruitment and service conditions of public servants
2.Article 323B — for adjudicating disputes relating to taxation, industrial disputes, and land reforms
3.Article 226 — for the exercise of original writ jurisdiction by High Courts
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
The Supreme Court's characterisation of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 as an 'impermissible legislative override' is most directly related to which constitutional principle?
With reference to the Rojer Mathew case (2019), which of the following statements is correct?
Consider the following assertion and reason:
Assertion (A): The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 requires the selection committee to recommend only one candidate per vacancy rather than a panel of two names.
Reason (R): The Supreme Court held that requiring a panel of two names gave the executive undue discretion in appointments, jeopardising the independence of tribunals.
Which of the following is correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account