Tribunal Commission may become template for selection of judges
The Lok Sabha passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, which establishes a National Tribunals Commission (NTC) to oversee the selection, performance, and complaints process for members across 16 tribunals
The Commission will be headquartered in New Delhi and will comprise a chairperson, two judicial members, and two technical members
The chairperson must be a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of a High Court; judicial members must be former Chief Justices or judges of High Courts; technical members must have at least 25 years of experience in public administration, finance, law, or technology
The Commission will set up Search-cum-Selection Committees for each tribunal and is expected to process appointment recommendations within three months
Tribunals brought under the Commission's oversight include the NCLAT, SAT, ITAT, NGT, AFT, CAT, TDSAT, and CESTAT, among others
Commentary around the Bill has framed the Commission's independent, judiciary-anchored selection process as a potential model for reforming appointments to constitutional courts as well
Tribunals and the Doctrine of Judicial Independence — Madras Bar Association Line of Cases
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies created by statute to adjudicate specialised disputes (tax, company law, environment, administrative matters) outside the regular court hierarchy, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that they must maintain the same independence from executive control as courts, since they exercise judicial power.
Key Details
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) held that tribunals function as supplements, not substitutes, to High Courts, and their decisions remain subject to judicial review under Articles 226/227 and 32
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021 that fixed member tenure at 4 years (instead of the previously mandated 5 years) and imposed a minimum age of 50, holding these violated the separation of powers and undermined judicial independence by giving the executive excessive control over tenure and appointments
- A further Madras Bar Association ruling (2025) reaffirmed limits on legislative attempts to override earlier tribunal-independence judgments, holding that repeated executive-favouring amendments cannot circumvent binding precedent
- The recurring judicial complaint has been executive dominance over the selection and service conditions of tribunal members, which the National Tribunals Commission is designed to address by creating an independent, judiciary-led selection body
The NTC is a direct legislative response to nearly three decades of Supreme Court rulings demanding insulation of tribunal appointments from executive control — its "chairperson plus judicial-majority-adjacent" structure (2 judicial + 2 technical members under a former judge/CJ) is designed to survive the same constitutional scrutiny that struck down earlier ordinances.
Appointment of Constitutional Court Judges — Collegium System vs NJAC
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed under Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which require the President to act after "consultation" with the Chief Justice of India and other judges. Since the Second and Third Judges Cases (1993, 1998), this consultative process has evolved into the judiciary-led "Collegium system."
Key Details
- Under the Collegium system, a body of the five senior-most Supreme Court judges recommends appointments to the Supreme Court, while a three-judge Collegium (headed by the Chief Justice of the respective High Court) recommends High Court appointments
- Parliament attempted to replace this with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), created by the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, which would have included the CJI, two senior SC judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons
- The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC and the 99th Amendment in October 2015 (4:1 majority) in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, holding that executive participation in judicial appointments (via the Law Minister and eminent persons with an effective veto) violated the basic structure doctrine — specifically, judicial independence and separation of powers
- The Collegium system continues to face criticism for lacking transparency and a fixed eligibility/selection criterion, keeping the debate over appointment reform alive
Commentary suggests the NTC's model — an independent commission led by a former judge, insulated from direct executive appointment power, but still involving defined eligibility criteria and time-bound processing — could offer a middle path acceptable to the judiciary, informing any future attempt to design a body for High Court/Supreme Court judge selection that avoids the constitutional infirmities that doomed the NJAC.
Search-cum-Selection Committees and Appointment Process Design
Search-cum-Selection Committees (SCSCs) are a mechanism increasingly used in Indian administrative and quasi-judicial appointments to combine merit-based shortlisting ("search") with formal interview/selection, aiming to balance transparency with expert judgment.
Key Details
- Under the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, the NTC constitutes a separate SCSC for each of the 16 tribunals, comprising Commission members, retired judges, and senior government officials
- The government is required to act on SCSC recommendations within three months, addressing a long-standing complaint about executive delay in tribunal appointments that the Supreme Court has flagged in multiple cases
- Chairpersons of tribunals under this framework serve for five years or until age 70, and members for five years or until age 67 — restoring the tenure norms that Madras Bar Association (2021) held were unconstitutionally shortened by the 2021 Ordinance
The time-bound, judiciary-anchored SCSC design directly answers the two central failures the Supreme Court identified in earlier tribunal reform attempts — executive delay and inadequate judicial primacy in selection — which is why it is being discussed as a potential template beyond tribunals.
- National Tribunals Commission (NTC) composition: 1 chairperson + 2 judicial members + 2 technical members
- Headquarters: New Delhi
- Number of tribunals brought under NTC oversight: 16 (including NCLAT, SAT, ITAT, NGT, AFT, CAT, TDSAT, CESTAT)
- Chairperson tenure: 5 years or until age 70; member tenure: 5 years or until age 67
- SCSC recommendation processing timeline: within 3 months
- Key precedent cases: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997); Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021, 2025)
- Judicial appointments (for comparison): Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution; Collegium system (post-1993/1998 Judges Cases); NJAC and 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, struck down in October 2015