IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

The Hon’ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj And The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray MAT 469 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 NCLT Advocates Bar Association & Ors.

-Vs-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Appellants : Mr. Joy Saha Ms. Manju Bhuteria Mr. Sidhartha Sharma Mr. Patit Paban Bishwal Ms. Namrrataa Basu Ms. Shreya Chowdhury Mr. Barnik Ghosh Mr. Kanishk Keiriwal Mr. Dripto Majumdar Ms. Kirann Sharma Ms. Madhu Jana Ms. Rashmi Bothra Mr. Udit Agarwal Ms. Tanvi Luhariwala Ms. Arundhati Barman Roy Ms. Sohini Dey Ms. Pallavi Gogoi Mr. Avik Chowdhury Mr. Arkadeb Sinha Mr. Rishav Banerjee Mr. Aman Kataruka Mr. Amandeep Singh Mr. Riyanshu Agarwal For the Respondents : Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi Mr. Avinash Kankani Reserved On : 07.05.2025 Pronounced On : 15.05.2025 Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.

1. By this appeal, the correctness of the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 25.03.2025 passed in W.P.A. No 4927 of 2025 (NCLT Advocates Bar Association, Kolkata bench & Ors v. Union of India Ors) has been questioned by the appellant herein, who were the petitioners in the writ petition.

2. The genesis of the dispute lies in the alleged denial of basic facilities to the members of the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLT’) Advocates Bar Association at the Kolkata Bench. The appellant/petitioner association had approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that despite repeated representations made to the concerned authorities, including the Union of India and other stakeholders, there was a persistent failure to provide fundamental infrastructural support and basic amenities such as chambers, seating arrangements, washrooms and other necessary facilities essential for the smooth functioning and dignity of legal professionals practicing before the NCLT.

3. The Learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the writ petition and issued certain directions to the respondent authorities. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant primarily on the ground that the directions passed by the learned Single Judge were not sustainable in law and had the effect of interfering with administrative and policy matters which were within the domain of the executive.

4. The Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment dated 25^th March, 2025, passed by the Learned Single Judge, is untenable in law and liable to be set aside as the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the proposal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to shift the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, to the newly constructed Corporate Bhawan is arbitrary, devoid of cogent reasons and lacks transparency. The proposal seeks to house the Tribunal alongside various executive offices under the MCA, including the Regional Director, Registrar of Companies, Official Liquidator and Serious Fraud Investigation Office. Such a move undermines the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, thereby defeating the constitutional mandate laid down in Article 50 of the Constitution of India.

5. The Learned Single Judge erred in ignoring the constitutional mandate and binding precedents, particularly the landmark judgment in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association reported in (2010) 11 SCC 1, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that Tribunals must function independently and remain free from executive control or influence.

6. The Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the respondents have failed to comply with the order of the Constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Private Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India reported in (2019) 4 SCC 17, wherein the Apex Court held:

“2. …the administrative support for all tribunals should be from the Minis