The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for an independent National Tribunals Commission to oversee the administrative and infrastructural needs of tribunals, ensuring judicial independence and effective functioning.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who is a practising advocate, seeking various reliefs in respect of the functioning of the NCLT and for constitution/appointment of various benches of the NCLT.

3. The submission of the Petitioner is that NCLT benches are to be constituted and set up in all States and at this point there are only 19 judicial members and 22 technical members. Despite the heavy load of cases, the appointments to the NCLT and NCLAT are considerably delayed.

4. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents takes a preliminary objection that issues raised in this petition are fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr,2020 SCCOnlineSC 962. He specifically refers to paragraphs 13, 20, 26 and the concluding paragraphs where the Supreme Court has directed the formation of a 'National Tribunals Commission' to take care of the administrative and infrastructural needs of tribunals. While the said Commission is formed, as an interregnum measure, the Court has also provided for the setting up of a separate 'Tribunals wing' in the Ministry of Finance. Ld. counsel submits that the said directions having already been passed in respect of all tribunals, with specific reference to the NCLT and NCLAT, the judgment covers the issues raised by the Petitioner.

5. The reliefs sought for in this Petition are as under:

"(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to forthwith assess the requirement of the number of tribunals of the 2nd Respondent based on analysis of the relevant variables including the case filing load and the planned disposal times and the estimated hearing times required

(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents formulate a rolling recruitment plan to ensure that the recruitments are made in advance of the vacancies arising from retirements

(c) Issue rule nisi in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above;

(d) pass such other and further order / orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

A perusal of the reliefs shows that the Petitioner prays for a direction to be issued to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the NCLT to assess the requirement of the number of tribunals of the NCLT and for this Court to formulate a rolling recruitment plan for the NCLT.

6. This Court has perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association (supra). Clearly, the judgment covers the issues which have been raised by the Petitioner, including in respect of appointments to Tribunals, enquiries against members, monitoring of the functioning and the filling up of vacancies in Tribunals, as well as assessment of the workload and providing all adequate infrastructure. The relevant findings of the Supreme Court read as under:

"13. Mr. Datar also referred to the Reports of the Franks and Leggatt Committees which describe the role of Tribunals in the United Kingdom in a detailed manner. Mr. Datar brought to our notice that the recommendations of the Leggatt Committee were cited with approval in the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010) (supra). According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the administrative support is provided by a Department of the Government of India, the Secretary of which is a Member of the Search-cum-Selection Committee. He cited the judgment of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) to argue that there should be a wholly independent agency for the administration of all the Tribunals. The learned Amicus Curiae also brought to our notice a statement made by Mr. Arun Jaitley, the then Minister of Law and Justice on the floor of t