Back
CJI Kant: Tribunals a 'Liability' and 'Mess'
In a rare and forthright courtroom rebuke, Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant has lambasted the tribunal system in India as a "liability" and a "mess," accusing it of functioning in a "
" devoid of accountability. Addressing
during a
hearing on Thursday, the CJI remarked,
"Mr. Attorney, Tribunals are your (Centre) creation, and they have become your headache."
He went further, stating they are
"a headache for you (Centre), and a liability for us"
due to poor orders, dysfunctional operations, and the resultant flood of challenges before the apex court. This stems from a bench led by CJI Kant—comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi—hearing petitions related to tenure extensions for tribunal members, following the
's landmark invalidation of the
. Amid concerns over unfilled vacancies, the court granted interim extensions but underscored the urgent need for reforms.
The CJI's comments, delivered in the context of vs. Union of India (D. No. 10627/2026 and connected matters), highlight deep-seated flaws in India's ecosystem, raising profound questions for legal practitioners navigating specialized domains.
The Rise and Troubles of Tribunalisation in India
Tribunals in India trace their origins to the in 1976, which inserted to establish administrative and other tribunals for expediting justice in specialized areas. Envisioned as efficient alternatives to overburdened courts, they proliferated under various statutes—covering domains like debt recovery (DRT/DRAT), company law (NCLT/NCLAT), environment (NGT), and competition (CCI). The intent was clear: relieve and the by channeling technical disputes to domain experts.
However, this "tribunalisation" has morphed into a systemic quagmire. Successive judgments have struck down provisions diluting . In S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India (1987), the court upheld tribunals but mandated High Court oversight. Later, R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) emphasized judicial members' dominance. The 2021 Tribunal Reforms Act—amalgamating multiple tribunals under a single search-cum-selection framework—was invalidated in vs. Union of India (2021) for violating , lacking (at least 50% judicial members), and infringing equality.
CJI Kant's intervention echoes these precedents, critiquing how legislative zeal to curb
' "constitutional powers" has birthed unaccountable bodies. He lamented,
"What a mess we have in the name of creating Tribunal, only with the anxiety that the
should not exercise Constitutional powers."
CJI's Scathing Remarks: A Courtroom Exposé
The hearing arose from pleas for extending tribunal members' tenures, including the Chairperson, amid stalled appointments. The bench expressed reluctance for "blanket extensions" but was compelled by vacancies. It was here that CJI Kant unleashed his critique.
Directly confronting the AG, he painted tribunals as governmental Frankenstein:
"Thanks to the legislative regime, we have created a
, they (Tribunals) are not accountable to the judiciary and not accountable to anyone on earth."
Worse, he revealed "reliable information" on egregious malpractices in a key financial tribunal—likely alluding to NCLAT or DRTs handling IBC matters.
"Technical members of one important Tribunal are not writing a single judgment, they are insisting that judicial members write the judgment. They are insisting the judicial members write judgments in their name. I know the audacity of one technical member, who asked the judicial member to write judgment in his name."
The CJI decried technical members
"outsourcing the writing of judgments,"
a practice
"completely unheard in the judicial system."
This "audacity," he said, perturbed him deeply, underscoring ethical breaches akin to
—undermining judicial integrity and public trust.
Specific Irregularities and Systemic Failures
These revelations spotlight two core pathologies. First, the technical member conundrum : Appointed for expertise (e.g., finance in NCLAT), they dominate benches yet shirk core duties like authoring orders, subverting the judicial-technical balance mandated by SC rulings like Madras Bar (requiring judicial majority and qualifications).
Second, accountability vacuum : Untethered from High Court superintendence (post-tribunal ouster clauses) and executive oversight, tribunals issue "problematic" orders routinely challenged before the SC. CJI Kant linked this to "tribunalisation," starving of exposure to IBC, environmental, and commercial law—eroding institutional expertise.
Recent extensions, like 's, came with directives for a "concrete plan" per Madras Bar . Yesterday's order reiterated interim extensions "till further orders," buying time but signaling impatience.
Legal Analysis: Constitutional and Ethical Dimensions
CJI Kant's outburst implicates fundamental principles. mandates judicial-executive separation; tribunals, as "substitutes" for courts ( Union of India vs. R. Gandhi , 2010), cannot erode this. Outsourcing judgments flouts Assistant Collector vs. Dunken Coffee (2000) on personal responsibility for orders. Technical members' conduct raises concerns, potentially attracting Bar Council ethics probes or contempt.
The 2021 Act's fall reinforced L. Chandra Kumar (1997): tribunals subject to High Court writs under . CJI's " " critique urges restoring this via legislation ensuring accountability—perhaps fixed tenures, judicial oversight committees, and transparent selection.
For practitioners, this signals scrutiny: sloppy tribunal orders face summary reversals, hiking litigation costs.
Broader Impacts on Legal Practice and the Justice System
The fallout reverberates across the bar. Specialized lawyers in IBC (post-2016 Code boom) or NGT environmental suits may pivot to if tribunals reform or dissolve. , long sidelined, could reclaim jurisdiction, fostering robust jurisprudence but straining dockets.
The
's burden
intensifies:
"challenges which come before us"
from tribunal follies clog the apex roster, delaying core constitutional matters. Executive lethargy on appointments—vowed fixes post-
Madras Bar
—exposes Centre-state friction.
Globally, contrasts sharpen the critique: U.S. administrative law judges face Article III oversight; UK's tribunals report to the Senior President. India risks a parallel judiciary sans checks.
Reform beacons include the 2019 Bill (struck aspects) and parliamentary panels urging hybrid benches. Bar bodies like Madras Bar may litigate for dissolution or overhaul.
Looking Ahead: A Call for Reckoning
CJI Kant's unflinching diagnosis—
"What Mess We Have Created By Tribunalisation"
—demands action. The bench's directives presage comprehensive guidelines, potentially mandating judgment authorship protocols and accountability audits. For legal professionals, this is a clarion: tribunals endure only if judicially anchored. Absent swift legislative cure, the "headache" persists, a liability taxing India's justice delivery.
