Rajya Sabha passes Tribunals Reforms Bill in Opposition’s absence
Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, with the Rajya Sabha clearing it a day after it was passed in the Lok Sabha; the bill was passed by voice vote without members of the Opposition present in the House.
The Ministry of Law and Justice stated that the Bill's objective is to bring in a modern, independent and uniform tribunal system, reforming the functioning, administration and appointment process of tribunals across the country.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a National Tribunals Commission to oversee appointments, service conditions, functioning, and administrative and infrastructural requirements of tribunals.
The legislation follows a Supreme Court direction to the Union Government to establish an independent oversight body for tribunals within a fixed time frame after key provisions of an earlier tribunal law were struck down.
Tribunals under the Constitution: Articles 323A and 323B
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies created outside the ordinary court hierarchy to provide speedy, specialised adjudication and reduce the burden on High Courts and the Supreme Court. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Part XIV-A (Articles 323A and 323B) into the Constitution, giving Parliament and State Legislatures the power to constitute tribunals for administrative matters and for other specified matters respectively.
Key Details
- Article 323A: Parliament may establish Administrative Tribunals to adjudicate disputes on recruitment and service conditions of persons in public service (e.g., Central Administrative Tribunal, set up under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985)
- Article 323B: Parliament or State Legislatures may establish tribunals for matters like taxation, land reforms, industrial and labour disputes, elections, and foreign exchange
- Both provisions were inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976, during the Emergency, as part of a broader push to reduce delays in the regular judiciary
The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 is the latest in a series of legislative attempts to standardise how tribunals created under this constitutional scheme are staffed and administered.
The Madras Bar Association Case Series and Judicial Review of Tribunals
A recurring line of Supreme Court cases, collectively referred to as the Madras Bar Association series, has repeatedly tested the constitutionality of executive control over tribunal appointments and tenure. In its most recent iteration, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (19 November 2025), the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 relating to appointment and tenure of tribunal members as unconstitutional — holding that they were, in substance, a repetition of provisions the Court had already invalidated in earlier rounds of the same litigation — and directed the Union Government to establish an independent National Tribunals Commission within four months.
Key Details
- The foundational case is L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), which held that the power of judicial review of the High Courts under Article 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 cannot be ousted even by a constitutional amendment (part of the basic structure), and that all tribunal orders remain subject to a Division Bench of the jurisdictional High Court
- The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 had prescribed a uniform four-year tenure for tribunal chairpersons and members, a minimum appointment age of 50 years, and upper age limits of 70 (chairperson) and 67 (members)
- The November 2025 judgment held such provisions gave the executive excessive control over appointments and tenure, violating separation of powers and judicial independence, and directed constitution of a National Tribunals Commission within four months of the ruling
The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 is Parliament's legislative response to this Supreme Court direction — it seeks to institutionalise the National Tribunals Commission rather than leave tribunal administration to executive ministries, addressing the separation-of-powers concern flagged across the Madras Bar Association litigation.
The Search-cum-Selection Committee Mechanism
Appointment of tribunal members has historically gone through a Search-cum-Selection Committee designed to balance judicial and executive representation, following earlier Supreme Court directions that tribunal appointments must not be dominated by the executive alone.
Key Details
- Under the framework evolved through the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and related rules, the Search-cum-Selection Committee for most tribunals is chaired by the Chief Justice of India (or a Supreme Court judge nominated by the CJI, holding a casting vote), and includes government-nominated secretaries and a retired judicial member
- Courts have repeatedly held that a judicial-majority selection process is necessary to preserve the independence of tribunals from the executive departments whose decisions they may adjudicate
- The proposed National Tribunals Commission is intended to take over recruitment, training, infrastructure and disciplinary oversight functions that were previously fragmented across individual sponsoring ministries
Ensuring "uniformity" — the stated objective behind the 2026 Bill — means replacing ministry-by-ministry control of tribunals (e.g., separate oversight by the Finance Ministry for the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, or the Environment Ministry for the National Green Tribunal) with a single, more judicially insulated Commission.
Parliamentary Procedure: Passage by Voice Vote
A bill is passed by voice vote when the presiding officer gauges the "Ayes" and "Noes" by voice rather than through a recorded division (electronic or ballot vote). This is a standard and constitutionally valid mode of passing ordinary legislation, distinct from special-majority requirements that apply only to specific categories of bills (such as constitutional amendments under Article 368 or removal resolutions).
Key Details
- Ordinary bills like the Tribunals Reforms Bill require only a simple majority of members present and voting
- A recorded division can be demanded by members if they contest the voice vote outcome; in the absence of members demanding one, the presiding officer's voice-vote determination stands
- This is a procedural/parliamentary-practice fact and does not indicate the bill's constitutional standing
The bill's passage without a formal division reflects standard House procedure for an ordinary law, not any special constitutional requirement — an important prelims-level distinction between passage mechanics and majority thresholds.
- 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Articles 323A and 323B, enabling creation of tribunals
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): judicial review under Articles 226/227 and 32 cannot be excluded even by constitutional amendment
- Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 prescribed: 4-year tenure, minimum age 50 for appointment, upper age limits of 70 (chairperson)/67 (member)
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (19 November 2025): struck down 2021 Act's appointment/tenure provisions; directed a National Tribunals Commission within 4 months
- Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026: passed in Lok Sabha, then in Rajya Sabha, by voice vote