“THE TRIBUNAL REFORMS ACT, 2021 is a replica of the struck-down Ordinance; old wine in a new bottle, the wine whets not the judicial palate, but the bottle merely dazzles.” Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted in his concurring opinion in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2025). The Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and directed the Government to establish a National Tribunals Commission (‘NTC’) within four months. It reiterated the directions contained in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019), delivered by the Constitution Bench calling for an independent body to oversee the functioning of tribunals and insulate their administration from executive control.
In response, the Government has now brought the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026. The Act establishes the NTC and repeals the earlier regime. In several respects, it is an improvement on its predecessor. It restores tenure, provides uniform service conditions and brings some certainty to pending appointments. However, the more consequential issue is whether the new law has removed the defect identified by the Court, or retained the same arrangement in more cleverly drafted terms.
The short answer is no. It has not remedied the situation to any substantial extent. The Act is riddled with fundamental issues and ambiguities. At the first glance three provisions are problematic: who appoints the NTC, who controls the Search-cum-Selection Committee (‘SCSC’), and who decides the qualifications of tribunal members. The third issue has not yet been tested, but the Act leaves it to rules made by the Government.
