Archive · 23 Aug 2026
Tribunal Reforms Act Raises Fresh Questions Over Judicial Autonomy
India has made a new law about how special courts called tribunals should be run.
The law changes tribunal members’ terms to five years.
It also creates a National Tribunals Commission, or NTC.
Critics say the Government still chooses many people who control the tribunals.
They are concerned because tribunals sometimes decide cases involving Government actions.
The Government may say the NTC is independent because judicial members have a three-to-two majority.
The law also allows the Government to take the final action when a tribunal member is removed.
The article says the Supreme Court may examine whether this arrangement respects the separation of powers.
It suggests that open competitions, like those used by the UK’s Judicial Appointments Commission, could provide more independence.
Parliament passed the Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2026, which became law after Presidential assent.
The Act changes tribunal members’ tenure to five years and creates a National Tribunals Commission.
Critics say the executive retains substantial control over appointments, administration, and removals.
The Government may argue that the Commission’s three-to-two judicial-member design protects independence.
The article proposes a UK-style Judicial Appointments Commission with open, competitive recruitment.
- Who
- Parliament, the Government, the judiciary, the Supreme Court, and the National Tribunals Commission are central to the dispute.
- What
- The Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2026 became an Act introducing five-year tenure, a revised selection panel, and the National Tribunals Commission.
- When
- The article was published on August 23, 2026; it refers to the Madras Bar Association judgment of 2025 and the Act’s subsequent Presidential assent.
- Where
- The dispute concerns tribunal administration in India, while the article compares the system with the United Kingdom’s model.
- Why
- The law seeks to address judicial concerns over tribunal administration, but critics question whether it preserves separation of powers and tribunal independence.
Critics of Executive Control
Government’s Defense
Tribunal independence
Critics of Executive Control
Critics say a body exercising judicial functions cannot be sufficiently independent if the executive appoints and controls it, especially when tribunals decide cases involving Government actions.
Government’s Defense
The Government may argue that the National Tribunals Commission’s three-to-two majority of judicial members provides sufficient autonomy.
Appointments and removals
Critics of Executive Control
Critics say executive influence remains substantial because a Government secretary votes on selection committees and the Central Government takes final action on removals.
Government’s Defense
The Act’s structure could be presented as a new mechanism that addresses earlier judicial concerns through the National Tribunals Commission and revised selection arrangements.
Future appointments model
Critics of Executive Control
The article favors an open, competitive process modeled on the United Kingdom’s Judicial Appointments Commission to ensure genuine judicial autonomy.
Government’s Defense
The Government has argued that the new tribunal mechanism could also serve as a template for judicial appointments, though the article questions whether the mechanism is sufficiently independent.
- New institution
- The Act creates a National Tribunals Commission.
- Tribunal tenure
- Tenure is changed to five years.
- Commission appointments
- The Government appoints the Chairperson and members of the National Tribunals Commission.
- Judicial consultation
- The Government consults the Chief Justice for the Chairperson and judicial members, but the Act provides no such consultation for technical members.
- Selection committees
- A Government secretary is a voting member of the Search-cum-Selection Committees.
- Removal process
- The administering ministry may begin an inquiry, the Commission makes a recommendation, and the Central Government takes the final action.
- Earlier ruling
- The Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 in the Madras Bar Association judgment, 2025.