Polity and Governance › Judiciary

Pendency, court reform and tribunals

The work of the courts: the backlog, reforms to clear it, the tribunals set up beside the courts and the questions of their independence.

All 3 articles shown; the 3 that changed from 1 July to 30 September 2026 are marked.Show only these

Tribunals and the National Tribunals Commission

Prelims and Mains

LeadThe Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026 and the National Tribunals CommissionAugust 2026

Why in news

Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026, and the President gave assent on 13 August 2026. It creates a National Tribunals Commission to select the members of 16 tribunals, review their work and inquire into complaints against them. It came into force on 25 August.

Background

A tribunal is a body set up by law to decide disputes in a special field, such as service matters, tax, company law or the environment. It is meant to be quicker and more expert than a court.

The 42nd Amendment (1976) added Article 323A (administrative tribunals) and Article 323B (tribunals for other matters).
For a decade Parliament and the Supreme Court have gone back and forth. Parliament fixed short tenures and gave the executive a large say in selection; the Court struck the provisions down; Parliament passed them again.

On 19 November 2025 the Court held that the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 had re enacted what it had already struck down. The 2026 Act is Parliament's answer.

What the Act creates

The Commission: a Chairperson who is a former Supreme Court judge or former Chief Justice of a High Court, appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India; two judicial and two technical members.

Its work: run selections, review the performance of tribunals, inquire into complaints, and keep a National Tribunals Data Grid.
Tenure: five years, up to the age of 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members, with reappointment allowed.
The Centre must appoint within three months of a recommendation.
The Act repeals the 2021 Act and saves appointments already made.

Does it meet the Court's test?

The Court has asked for three things: judges in the majority in selection, security of tenure, and freedom from the parent ministry.
For it: a single commission headed by a judge is what the Court itself suggested, and the tenure is now five years, not four.
Against it: a Union Secretary sits on each selection committee and the Centre makes the final appointment, while the Union is the largest litigant before these tribunals.
A performance review can become a lever over members if its data stays with the executive.

How it was passed

The Lok Sabha introduced and passed the Bill on the same day, without debate.
This matters because the earlier laws fell partly for want of engagement with the Court's directions.
A Standing Committee had reported days earlier on vacancies, notably in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the National Green Tribunal.

Cases to cite

S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987): a tribunal can replace a High Court only if it is an equally effective alternative.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): judicial review by the High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure; tribunal decisions go to a Division Bench of the High Court.
Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010): tribunals must have the independence of the courts they replace.
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019): struck down the tribunal rules made under the Finance Act, 2017.
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021 and 2025): struck down the four year tenure and the minimum age of 50; the 2025 ruling held that Parliament cannot re-enact a provision without curing the defect.

The way forward

Give the Commission its own budget and secretariat, outside the ministries whose orders the tribunals review.
Place the Data Grid in the public domain.
Fill vacancies before they arise, by starting selection six months ahead.
Review whether every tribunal is needed; where a High Court bench would serve, merge or wind up.

Prelims facts

Articles 323A and 323B were inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976.
Article 323A tribunals can be set up only by Parliament; Article 323B tribunals by Parliament or a State legislature.
National Tribunals Commission: Chairperson, two judicial and two technical members.
Tenure under the 2026 Act: five years; age limit 70 (chairperson) and 67 (member).
The Central Administrative Tribunal was set up in 1985.

Open the lead on its own page

A tribunal is a body set up by law to decide disputes in a special field, such as service matters, tax, company law or the environment. It is meant to be quicker and more expert than a court.

What changed

13 Aug 2026LeadThe Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026 and the National Tribunals Commission
15 Sep 2026Briefnewly addedOn 15 September the Supreme Court directed the Union to extend the terms of sitting tribunal members until fresh appointments are made. LiveLaw, 15 Sep 2026: Supreme Court daily round up, September 15, 2026 (opens in a new tab)

District judges to retire at 62

Prelims

The retirement age of judicial officers of the district courts is set by State service rules.

What changed

1 Sep 2026Briefnewly addedOn 1 September 2026 the Supreme Court directed seven States to amend their rules so that judicial officers retire at 62 instead of 60. In August it had held that judicial officers are not government servants and may have a different retirement age. Supreme Court Observer, 1 Sep 2026: Supreme Court monthly review: September 2026 (opens in a new tab)

AI in courts: the draft 2026 Regulations

Prelims and Mains

The draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, prepared by the Supreme Court's AI Committee, are a 57 regulation framework for every court and tribunal in India.

Regulation 4 makes AI strictly assistive and subservient to human judgement.
Regulation 20 lists prohibited uses as absolute and non derogable, including risk scoring for flight risk, recidivism, bail eligibility or witness credibility; Regulation 56 bars the Apex Body from relaxing it.
Permitted uses include transcription, translation, legal research, scheduling, accessibility services and chatbots.
The ban traces to the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS), a US recidivism tool found to misclassify Black defendants, and SyRI, a Dutch welfare risk scoring system struck down in 2020 on privacy grounds.

Oversight chain

Supreme Court Apex Body
Sets the framework and may not relax the prohibited uses
High Court AI Secretariats
Keep the AI Register and Incident Database, run audits and publish transparency reports
High Court AI Committees
Hear grievances from litigants about AI use in their cases

Oversight runs down from the Supreme Court to every High Court, and a litigant's complaint runs up through the same chain.Source: Frontline, 16 June 2026

What changed

2 Jul 2026newly added
- In Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd (2 July 2026), the Supreme Court set aside orders of the National Company Law Tribunal and its appellate tribunal that relied on non existent precedents generated by artificial intelligence.
- It held that an order built on such hallucinated material is no decision in law, and that adjudication must stay under human control at every stage.
- It directed the Bar Council of India to set up a committee to frame principles and disciplinary norms on the use of artificial intelligence.
The Hindu, 2 Jul 2026: Supreme Court says AI-generated hallucinated precedents 'catastrophic' to judicial process, sets aside NCLT order (opens in a new tab) · LiveLaw, 2 Jul 2026: Supreme Court sets aside NCLT judgment for using AI hallucinated citations, asks BCI to examine issue (opens in a new tab)

Show history (1 other update)

16 Jun 2026New
- The draft was released on 3 June; about 52 million cases were pending across the judiciary as of mid 2026.
Mains: The bans are strong on paper but the oversight machinery is unfunded and beyond the capacity of district courts, and a High Court AI Secretariat must judge vendors' own descriptions of their tools, so a risk tool could be rebranded as a scheduling aid.
Frontline, 16 Jun 2026: A firewall against algorithmic justice (opens in a new tab)

Also filed elsewhere

Foreigners Tribunals and due process · on Citizenship
Foreigners Tribunals are quasi judicial bodies, mostly in Assam, that decide whether a person referred to them is a foreigner.
Insolvency Code and the money laundering law · on Competition, insolvency and ease of business
The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 halts claims against a company in insolvency, while the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 lets the Enforcement Directorate attach proceeds of crime.