2. The government had started the process of rationalisation of tribunals in 2015 and to that effect, Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. Certain provisions of the 2021 Act were struck down by the Supreme Court, after which the government brought the 2026 Bill to replace the 2021 Act, Union Law and Justice Minister noted in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill.
3. At the core of the Bill is the proposed National Tribunals Commission (NTC). The NTC will bring 16 tribunals under its umbrella, creating a common framework for their governance and administration. It is proposed to be headed by a former Supreme Court judge or a former chief justice of a high court, supported by two judicial members and two technical members.
What are tribunals?
4. Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies set up to provide speedy and specialised resolution of disputes in areas ranging from taxation and corporate law to administrative matters, thereby reducing the caseload on other courts. Refer to the infographic to understand how tribunals differ from traditional court system.
(Infographic source: AI generated)
What is the constitutional position of tribunals?
5. The original Constitution did not contain any provisions related to tribunals. However, a major constitutional change came through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which inserted Part XIV-A — “Tribunals”, introducing Articles 323A and 323B.
6. It laid the foundation for administrative tribunals dealing with service matters and others dealing with specified subjects, recognising the need for specialised mechanisms.
7. Article 323 A (1) says- “Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government.”
8. Article 323 B prescribes tribunals for other matters— “The appropriate Legislature may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by tribunals of any disputes, complaints, or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2) with respect to which such Legislature has power to make laws.”
9. These matters are — levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax; foreign exchange, import and export across customs frontiers; industrial and labour disputes; land reforms by way of acquisition by the State of any estate as defined in article 31A or of any rights therein or the extinguishments or modification of any such rights or by way of ceiling on agricultural land or in any other way; ceiling on urban property etc.
Why do tribunals matter?
10. Tribunals deal with specialised areas such as taxation, company law, securities and the environment. Their purpose is not to replace constitutional courts but to complement the judicial system by providing specialised adjudication and contributing to speedy and effective justice.
11. A dispute in a growing economy is rarely a mere question of accounting or a legal anomaly. Behind it may lie an entrepreneur’s confidence, an industry’s investment, a business’s future, employment opportunities and the continuity of economic activity.
12. When disputes are resolved in a timely and fair manner, capital can return to productive circulation and confidence in the system is strengthened. Ease of justice and ease of doing business are deeply interconnected.
How has the Supreme Court upheld the independence of tribunals?
13. Over more than three decades, the Supreme Court has delivered nine key judgments, starting with the SP Sampath Kumar case in 1987 and extending to the Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021), that have collectively built a strong jurisprudence on the independence of tribunals.
14. In L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) the top court struck down a portion of the 42nd Amendment, which set up administrative tribunals excluding judicial review by High Courts.
15. Through its decisions, the court has established a set of binding constitutional principles:
(i) tribunals must be independent from their sponsoring departments,
(ii) selection committees must have judicial primacy to ensure independence from the executive,
(iii) members must have a secure and sufficiently long tenure (of at least five years) and
(iv) the high courts’ power of judicial review over tribunals is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
16. However, these constitutional principles have frequently come into conflict with attempts to restructure the tribunal system, particularly where reforms have been seen as giving the executive greater control over appointment process, tenure and service conditions.
17. The government sought to rationalise the tribunal ecosystem that had developed across different ministries and departments, leading to variations in practices and multiplicity of procedures. The Finance Act, 2017 merged tribunals of a similar nature and reduced their number from 26 to 19, while also laying down provisions concerning their administration and service conditions.
18. These provisions were challenged before the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019), where the Court found several provisions inconsistent with its earlier jurisprudence on tribunal independence.
19. The Centre subsequently notified the Tribunal Rules, 2020, which were again challenged by the Madras Bar Association. In 2021, the Supreme Court struck down provisions that prescribed a four-year tenure and reiterated that short tenure could compromise tribunal independence and institutional experience.
20. Subsequently, the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021 and the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 reduced the number of tribunals from 19 to 16; however, several provisions were again struck down in Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India (November 2025) by the Supreme Court as contrary to judicial independence and separation of powers.
21. According to the court, the Act “fails to remove the defects identified in prior judgments and instead reenacts them under a new label”, thereby falling “afoul of the doctrine of constitutional supremacy”. Consequently, the court directed that the principles laid down in its earlier judgments, which mandate a five-year tenure for tribunal members and invalidate the 50-year minimum age limit for advocates, will continue to govern all appointments.
22. It also directed the Union government to establish a National Tribunals Commission – an independent body to oversee appointments and functioning of tribunals, which the court has been recommending for years – within four months.
BEYOND THE NUGGET: All India Judicial Service
1. Data from the National Judicial Data Grid provides a glimpse at the enormity of the backlog cases in India’s courts. At the end of July, 2026, a total of 5.06 crore cases are pending before the country’s judiciary, including 64,73,252 cases in different High Courts..
2. According to the India Justice Report (IJR) 2025, the average judicial vacancy in High Courts is 33 per cent and subordinate courts have an average vacancy of 21 per cent. Meanwhile, there are only 15 judges for every 10 lakh Indians — a fraction of what the 1987 report of the Law Commission recommended: Fifty judges per 10 lakh people.
3. In this context, the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) is seen as a potentially game-changing reform to centralise and standardise judicial appointments. Article 312 of the Constitution provides for the establishment of an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS), along the lines of the central civil services.
4. If the Rajya Sabha declares through a resolution, supported by at least two-thirds of its present and voting members, that it is necessary or expedient to create a service in “national interest,” the Parliament “may by law provide for the creation of one or more all India services (including an all India judicial service) common to the Union and the States” and regulate the recruitment and service conditions of persons appointed to any such service.
5. However, Article 312 (2) states that the AIJS cannot include any post inferior to that of a district judge, as defined in Article 236. A district judge can include a city civil court judge, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge, and assistant sessions judge.
Post Read Questions
Q. With reference to tribunals in India, consider the following statements:
1. Part XIV-A of the Constitution, containing provisions relating to tribunals, was inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
2. Article 323A deals with administrative tribunals, while Article 323B deals with tribunals for specified matters such as taxation, industrial disputes and land reforms.
3. The power of judicial review of High Courts over tribunals is excluded by the Constitution.
4. The Supreme Court has held that judicial review by High Courts over tribunals is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1, 2 and 4 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2, 3 and 4 only
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer: (a)
Q. Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021. (UPSC CSE, Mains 2025)
(Sources: Ease of doing business needs ease of justice, Why SC struck down the Tribunals Reforms Act and what it means, Explained: The discord between Supreme Court and the Centre over tribunals, why it matters)
🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for July 2026. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com
🚨Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X
Tribunals occupy a distinct space in India’s justice system, combining specialised adjudication with the need for independence and effective judicial review. (Image source: AI generated) 
(Infographic source: AI generated)
Share
