Reforming tribunals: Rising vacancies at the top are hampering efficiency

Tribunals were set up to offer swift, cost-effective, and decentralised resolution to legal disputes. The principal idea was that these quasi-judicial bodies would comprise members with specific sector expertise to deliver better-informed judgments relatively swiftly, reducing the caseload on regular courts. It is deeply concerning, therefore, to discover that India’s commercial tribunals in particular suffer from the same infirmities as the regular judicial system. According to legal think tank Daksh’s State of Tribunals 2025 report, India’s commercial tribunals face a backlog of 356,000 cases, worth ₹24.2 trillion (as of September). It estimates the value of these cases as amounting to 7.5 per cent of gross domestic product. 

Nothing illustrates this better than the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the context of functioning of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Between them, the two have more than 18,000 cases pending, worth ₹13 trillion. Against a statutory time limit of 330 days, cases take an average of 752 days to settle, defeating the purpose of the IBC. More than 80 per cent of the people working in these institutions are contractual, hampering efficiency even more. The Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), established to speed up recovery from commercial defaulters, have over 215,000 cases pending.  More than 86 per cent of these have been outstanding for over 180 days, well beyond the statutory six-month deadline.  Tax tribunals, such as the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, also face a backlog of more than 73,000 cases, worth an estimated value of ₹1.96 trillion. The newly launched Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal may face similar challenges. It will start with a formidable caseload of 480,000 appeals, worth ₹2.9 trillion in GST disputes. 

The core reasons for this performance are the same as those that afflict the judiciary: Successive legislative interventions, rising vacancies, procedural gaps, and concerns about the independence of these bodies. The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reform Act of 2021, which dissolved multiple appellate tribunals and shifted their functioning to high courts or civil courts. The Act also instituted a search-cum-selection committee to recommend the appointment of tribunal chairpersons and members. None of these reforms addresses key problems. For one, rather than filling positions quickly, search committees can be dilatory and prone to political pressure. For another, the recommendations are unlikely to solve the problem of conflict of interest, given that the government, which has the powers to appoint or remove tribunal members, is one of the main litigants in the tribunals. The government is still to act on recommendations of the Supreme Court and parliamentary committees for the creation of a National Tribunals Commission (NTC) to oversee the functioning of and appointments to tribunals. The NTC offers, at the very least, the prospect of a streamlined administrative framework. Without meaningful reforms, tribunals will remain little more than a reflection of the infirmities of India’s judicial system.