SC Strikes Down Key Provisions of Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021: A Judicial Pushback on Executive Overreach
On November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India rendered several provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, unconstitutional, citing violations of judicial independence and the principle of separation of powers. The judgement particularly targeted the four-year tenure for tribunal members and the mandatory 50-year minimum age criterion, both of which were deemed arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. Notably, this marks the fourth time in recent years that the apex court has rebuffed executive overreach in the domain of tribunals.
What Makes This Judgement Different?
The ironclad critique by the Supreme Court underscores a departure from the piecemeal approach it has historically taken. While such confrontations between the judiciary and executive have become almost routine in the tribunal domain, what stands out this time is the Court’s reiteration of its direction to establish the National Tribunals Commission (NTC), an independent body to oversee appointments and administration of tribunals. This direction was first issued in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019), but the current judgement imposes the strict timeline of four months for compliance.
Equally significant is the Court’s detailed criticism of provisions such as the four-year tenure, which undermines tribunal members’ independence by subjecting them repeatedly to reappointment dependence on executive discretion. This institutional vulnerability is magnified by the fact that the executive — often a litigant before these tribunals — wields substantial control over appointments.
The Institutional Machinery Behind Tribunals
Tribunal governance in India is rooted in Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution, inserted via the 42nd Amendment in 1976. These provisions allow Parliament and State Legislatures to establish tribunals for specified purposes. However, tribunal adjudication has long been plagued by concerns of procedural opacity, understaffing, and delayed appointments.
Section 3 of the Tribunals Reforms Act had introduced eligibility requirements restricting the pool of tribunal candidates — particularly the minimum age of 50 years. Citing this as a violation of Article 14, the Court’s judgement calls for a return to inclusivity while affirming standards of merit. Meanwhile, Sections 5 and 6, related to tenure and appointment power, were struck down for undermining judicial independence, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
India’s tribunals are classified as either substitutive — directly replacing High Courts in their jurisdictions — or subordinate, with judicial oversight retained by High Courts. However, as the Supreme Court observed, even substitutive tribunals require insulation from undue executive influence.
Do Tribunals Pass the Ground Reality Test?
The government has consistently justified tribunal reforms as essential for reducing the caseload of 4.7 crore pending cases across Indian courts (as of 2022). However, the argument falls apart when juxtaposed with tribunal backlogs themselves. For instance, as of December 2024, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) alone had 2,100 unresolved cases. Across tribunals, vacancies remain endemic — with over 20% posts unfilled in several crucial bodies such as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
What the government consistently downplays is the financial allocation pattern. The 2025 Union Budget sanctioned ₹1,500 crore for judicial capacity-building, tribunals included, down from ₹1,800 crore in 2024 — an almost 17% cut. The mismatch between rhetoric and funds speaks volumes about the priority accorded to systemic efficiency.
Uncomfortable Questions That Remain
Beyond unconstitutional provisions, the larger issue appears structural. Why has the directive for an independent National Tribunals Commission been ignored for years? This oversight reveals the government’s reluctance to relinquish administrative control despite judicial reprimands, raising concerns about regulatory capture.
Additionally, state-level implementation varies sharply. Local Administrative Tribunals in Maharashtra function with higher efficiency than those in Uttar Pradesh, where delays and vacancies cripple tribunal work. Such disparities are rarely addressed by national legislation.
The timing of the Tribunal Reforms Act raises its own questions. Introduced via an Ordinance in April 2021 — bypassing parliamentary debate — the haste appears orchestrated to suppress dissent. With its striking down, the fallout exposes a broader pattern of executive short-termism.
An International Anchor: A Look at South Korea
South Korea's Administrative Appeals Tribunal offers a contrasting governance approach. Unlike India's tribunals, South Korea’s appointments are managed entirely by a Judicial Appointments Commission — an insulated body chaired by sitting judges. Members enjoy six-year terms, insulating decision-making from executive interference. Crucially, the South Korean system guarantees adequate funding and non-negotiable timelines for appointment — areas where India falters consistently.
Practice Questions for UPSC
Prelims Practice Questions
- 1. It mandated a minimum age requirement of 50 years for tribunal members.
- 2. It was introduced through a regular legislative process.
- 3. The Supreme Court found parts of the Act unconstitutional.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
- 1. Tribunals can entirely replace High Courts.
- 2. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized independence from the executive.
- 3. All tribunal appointments are decided by a National Tribunals Commission.
Select the correct answer.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the main provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 that were struck down by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court struck down the provisions mandating a four-year tenure for tribunal members and a minimum age criterion of 50 years. These provisions were deemed arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law.
What is the significance of the Supreme Court's call for the establishment of the National Tribunals Commission (NTC)?
The Supreme Court's call for the National Tribunals Commission is significant as it aims to ensure appointments and administration of tribunals are conducted independently and transparently. The Court set a strict timeline of four months for compliance, highlighting the urgent need for restructuring tribunal governance.
How do Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution relate to tribunals?
Articles 323A and 323B, added through the 42nd Amendment in 1976, empower Parliament and State Legislatures to establish tribunals for specified purposes. These articles form the constitutional basis for tribunal governance, which has faced multiple challenges related to independence and transparency.
What underlying issues does the Supreme Court's ruling reveal about the government's approach to tribunal reforms?
The ruling highlights the structural issues underlying tribunal governance, such as the government's reluctance to establish an independent NTC despite repeated judicial guidance. It also exposes concerns about executive overreach and regulatory capture, indicating a systemic inefficiency in managing tribunals.
What can be understood about the efficiency of local administrative tribunals in different states based on the article?
The article indicates that local administrative tribunals operate with varying degrees of efficiency across states, with some, like those in Maharashtra, performing better than others, such as in Uttar Pradesh. This disparity underlines the need for a unified approach in national legislation to enhance tribunal performance.
About LearnPro Editorial Standards
LearnPro editorial content is researched and reviewed by subject matter experts with backgrounds in civil services preparation. Our articles draw from official government sources, NCERT textbooks, standard reference materials, and reputed publications including The Hindu, Indian Express, and PIB.
Content is regularly updated to reflect the latest syllabus changes, exam patterns, and current developments. For corrections or feedback, contact us at admin@learnpro.in.