Supreme Court Flags “Serious Breakdown” in Tribunal System, Seeks Urgent Structural Reforms

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered sharp observations on the state of tribunals across the country, describing the present system as deeply problematic and in urgent need of structural reform.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi remarked that tribunals—originally conceived to reduce the burden on constitutional courts—have instead become a “liability” for the judiciary and a “headache” even for the government that created them.

“No Man’s Land”: CJI Questions Accountability

Addressing Attorney General R. Venkataramani in open court, CJI Surya Kant observed that most tribunals are functioning without meaningful accountability.

“Tribunals were created by you (the Central government). So it is your headache and a liability for us. Because now the kind of orders we are seeing—barring a few tribunals—these tribunals have become a no man’s land. They are not accountable to anyone,” the CJI remarked.

The Bench underscored that such a situation is not in the national interest, particularly when tribunals adjudicate matters involving high economic stakes, regulatory disputes, environmental governance, and commercial conflicts.

Warning Against Functional Paralysis

The Court reiterated its earlier direction to the Union government to prepare, within four weeks, a comprehensive and uniform framework governing the functioning of tribunals nationwide. It stressed that these quasi-judicial bodies cannot be allowed to drift into functional crisis.

Referring specifically to the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), CJI Kant stated that there must be continuity in adjudication. If the Chairperson’s position falls vacant, mechanisms must ensure that proceedings do not stall.

However, Justice Bagchi cautioned that a technical member alone cannot pass judicial orders, highlighting structural and legal limitations within tribunal composition.

Serious Allegations: Outsourcing of Judgments

In a striking revelation, CJI Kant disclosed that a technical member in one tribunal of considerable national importance has allegedly not authored a single judgment independently. According to the Court, the member has either relied on judicial members to write decisions or outsourced the task altogether.

“I am waiting. I will sack that member. What audacity. What mess have we created. In the over-anxiety of not taking much burden, we have created this,” the CJI remarked, signalling possible disciplinary action at an appropriate stage.

The remarks reflect the Court’s growing concern over standards of adjudication, professional competence, and integrity within certain tribunals.

Concerns Over Expertise and Eligibility

The Bench also questioned whether tribunal members are adequately equipped to handle specialised areas such as environmental law, commercial disputes, and regulatory matters.

“These judges don’t learn environmental law, commercial law etc., and in four years they are expected to become experts. Perhaps a completely new mechanism is needed. The manner in which they are completely unaccountable is not in national interest,” the CJI observed.

The Court indicated that incremental fixes may no longer suffice and that a structural overhaul could be necessary to safeguard national and institutional interests.

Background: Tribunals Reforms Act Struck Down

The present scrutiny follows the Supreme Court’s earlier intervention in November 2025, when a Bench led by then CJI B R Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 relating to appointment and tenure of tribunal members.

The Court had held that provisions previously invalidated were reintroduced by the Union government with only minor modifications, thereby violating binding judicial precedents.

In that judgment, the Court directed the Union government to establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months. It emphasised that such a body would serve as a structural safeguard to ensure independence, transparency, and uniform standards in appointments and administration.

The Court had observed that piecemeal legislative adjustments cannot cure longstanding systemic deficiencies, and that a centralised oversight mechanism is essential to restore credibility to the tribunal system.

Larger Institutional Implications

Tribunals were originally envisioned as specialised forums to ensure speedier and expert adjudication in technical domains while easing the burden on High Courts and the Supreme Court. However, the Court’s recent remarks indicate deep dissatisfaction with how that experiment has evolved.

With strong language from the Bench and explicit warnings of removal for errant members, the issue of tribunal reform appears poised to re-enter the centre of India’s judicial reform discourse.

The coming weeks will reveal whether the Union government responds with a comprehensive structural blueprint—or whether the Supreme Court will be compelled to take further corrective steps to safeguard institutional integrity.