Parliament has passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, introducing sweeping changes to the administration of tribunals across the country.
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies that are set up to provide swift and specialised resolution of disputes and reduce the caseload of courts.
The Bill establishes a National Tribunals Commission, fixes the tenure of tribunal members at five years and requires the Union government to appoint members within three months of their names being recommended by the commission.
These changes address several of the concerns repeatedly raised over the years by the Supreme Court regarding the administration of tribunals, particularly over tenure and the executive’s discretion in appointments.
But the Bill does not entirely remove the government from the administration of tribunals: the Centre retains important powers over the commission, its funding and rules, and service conditions.
The confrontation over tribunals
For years, the Supreme Court and the Union government have been locked in a legislative and judicial back-and-forth over the governance of tribunals.
The friction began with the Finance Act of 2017, which empowered the Centre to frame rules for tribunals. These rules were struck down by a Constitution bench of the court in the 2019 Rojer Mathew case for undermining judicial independence.
When the Centre notified new rules in 2020, the Supreme Court recommended several modifications, including suggesting a five-year tenure for members.
Instead of incorporating these suggestions, the Centre promulgated an Ordinance in April 2021 that fixed the tenure at four years, set a minimum appointment age of 50 and required selection committees to recommend a panel of two names for the government to choose from.
After the Supreme Court struck down these provisions as arbitrary, Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Act in August 2021, re-enacting the exact provisions the court had just declared unconstitutional.
Vacancies have been piling up at tribunals, shows government data from 2022.
What did the Supreme Court say in 2025?
In November 2025, a two-judge Supreme Court Bench struck down provisions of the 2021 Act, calling its re-enactment an “impermissible legislative override” of earlier judgments.
The court criticised the government for its persistent refusal to adhere to its pronouncements, writing, “It is indeed unfortunate that instead of giving effect to the well-established principles laid down by this Court… the legislature has chosen to re-enact or re-introduce provisions that reopen the same constitutional debates.”
It ruled that a short four-year tenure is “anti-merit” and “increases interference by the executive jeopardizing the independence of the judiciary.” It also held that the government could not demand a panel of two names as this gave the executive undue discretion in appointments.
The judgment also reiterated the need for a National Tribunals Commission and directed the Centre to establish one within four months. It protected certain existing appointments and selections while the new framework was being put in place.
What does the 2026 Bill change?
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2026 Bill says that it is being introduced “in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court” to “improve the efficiency, ensure independence, transparency and uniformity” in the functioning of tribunals. The reference is to a Supreme Court judgement in November last year that had struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
The most significant change is the establishment of the National Tribunals Commission. The Supreme Court had repeatedly insisted on the creation of this independent body to sever the tribunals’ reliance on their parent government ministries for administrative and financial needs, which the court argued kept them under executive control.
The Commission will conduct the selection process for vacancies, review the performance of tribunals, oversee inquiries into complaints against members and maintain a National Tribunals Data Grid. It will be headed by a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of a High Court and comprise two judicial members and two technical members. The technical members must have at least 25 years’ experience in fields such as public administration, finance or law.
However, the Commission is not entirely insulated from the executive. The Union government appoints its chairperson and members — though the chair and judicial members are to be appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India. The Centre also appoints the commission’s secretary, provides grants and retains rule-making powers over several aspects of tribunal members’ qualifications and service conditions.
The Bill resolves the previously contested issue of tenure by aligning with the court’s mandate and stipulating that chairpersons and members of tribunals will hold office for a term of five years. The maximum age limit has been set at 70 years for chairpersons and 67 years for members. They can be considered for reappointment.
The selection process has also been changed. The search-cum-selection committee for members will be headed by a judicial member of the Commission and will include a retired High Court judge, a government secretary, a technical member and experts. The committee will recommend one suitable candidate for each vacancy, with one additional name kept on a waiting list. The government must make the appointment within three months of receiving the recommendation.
This is a significant departure from the 2021 framework, under which the government was given a panel of two names from which to choose.
The 2026 Bill repeals the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and contains detailed transitional provisions protecting certain existing appointments and allowing some selection processes begun under the old framework to continue.
The National Company Law Tribunal had 24 vacancies against its sanctioned strength of 32. Photo: NCLT website 
Vacancies have been piling up at tribunals, shows government data from 2022.
Share
