Supreme Court seeks Centre's stand on one-month extension for tribunal members

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to take instructions on whether retiring tribunal members may continue for one month as a stop-gap arrangement until fresh appointments are made under the new Tribunal Reforms Act. "We do not want a situation where tribunals become defunct," said a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, giving Attorney General R Venkataramani a day to respond. The Centre said 248 members in 16 tribunals were eligible to continue, with extension orders issued to 229.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 16 Sept 2026, 9:02 am IST

Source

Hindustan Times — India · read the original report ↗

#supreme court#tribunals#tribunal reforms act#judiciary#appointments

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

Supreme Court asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to take instructions on a one-month extension for retiring tribunal members. — Attributed in source to court proceedings before a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant; matter posted for Wednesday.
248 members serving in 16 tribunals were found eligible to continue; extension orders issued to 229, with 19 in process. — Figures appear in source, attributed to the Centre's submission to the court last week.
Tribunals Reforms Act 2026 provides a five-year tenure and maximum age of 70 (67 in some cases). — Stated in source without direct citation of the statutory provision; internally consistent.
Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 in November 2025, citing 'legislative override'. — Source quotes the judgment's reasoning; no case citation given beyond reference to the Madras Bar Association case of July 2021.
The 2026 Act creates a National Tribunals Commission headed by a former SC judge or retired HC chief justice. — Described in source as following the court's direction; no source document cited.

Written by AI from Hindustan Times — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

This looks like an administrative technicality, but it is the latest chapter in a decade-long tug-of-war between the judiciary and the executive over who controls tribunals. That Parliament enacted the 2026 Act after the Supreme Court struck down the 2021 law — this time including a National Tribunals Commission — reads as a strategic win for the court. Yet the Centre's resistance to a one-month blanket extension signals it wants to keep the appointment process, and its timing, firmly in its own hands.

The sequence — court strikes down the 2021 Act as a "legislative override", Parliament returns with a 2026 Act containing the NTC — suggests the initiative on this issue has shifted from the executive towards the judiciary.
The bench's line that it does not want tribunals to become defunct shows the court is guarding against vacancies becoming a de facto instrument of leverage over adjudication.
The Attorney General's argument that ad-hoc arrangements hinder fresh appointments can be read both as a genuine push for speed and as an effort to protect the government's appointment prerogative.
By placing the numbers — 248 eligible, 229 extension orders issued — on record, the Centre is offering a political answer to both the court and its critics that it is acting, not stalling.
Petitioners' warning that excluding those who have exhausted tenure or crossed the age cap would jeopardise bodies like the NGT is politically sensitive given the environment-versus-industry disputes such tribunals decide.

What to watch — Watch Wednesday's response from the Attorney General and whether the Centre offers the "definite assurance" the bench asked for; the pace of constituting the NTC and picking its members will determine how sharp this friction becomes.

The story does not establish that vacancies are being allowed to persist deliberately or for any political motive, nor does it clarify the status of the NTC's constitution or a timeline for the fresh appointments.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 7 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

Tribunals such as the NGT decide specialised disputes, but their functioning depends on timely appointment of chairpersons and members. In November 2025 the Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, holding it "merely repackaged" provisions already invalidated in the Madras Bar Association case of July 2021, and directed the Union government to set up a National Tribunals Commission. Parliament then passed the Tribunals Reforms Act 2026, under which serving members' eligibility to continue is being reassessed. With members retiring and fresh appointments not yet made, the Supreme Court is now considering a one-month stop-gap extension so tribunals do not become defunct.

Key facts

A bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, asked the Centre to take instructions on a one-month extension for retiring tribunal members; matter posted for Wednesday.
Attorney General R Venkataramani was given a day to respond and said the Centre does not want ad-hoc arrangements as they hinder the fresh appointment process.
The court had earlier permitted retiring members to continue till September 8; when that period ended last week it directed the Centre to make new appointments at the earliest.
The Centre informed the court that about 248 members serving in 16 tribunals were found eligible to continue under the Tribunals Reforms Act 2026.
Extension orders have been issued to 229 persons, with 19 orders in the process of being issued.
The 2026 Act provides a five-year tenure and a maximum age limit of 70 years (67 in some cases).
The Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 in November 2025, including its four-year tenure and minimum entry age of 50, calling it a 'legislative override'.
The 2026 Act sets up a National Tribunals Commission headed by a former Supreme Court judge or retired high court chief justice, with two judicial and two technical members (25+ years' specialised experience).

Timeline

July 2021Supreme Court in the Madras Bar Association case struck down provisions on tribunal members' tenure and appointment conditions.
November 2025Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 as a 'legislative override' and directed creation of a National Tribunals Commission.
Last month (as per source)Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Act 2026, providing five-year tenure, age cap of 70 (67 in some cases) and the NTC.
Till September 8Supreme Court's earlier permission for retiring tribunal members to continue in service.
Last weekExtension period ended; Centre directed to make fresh appointments and reported 248 eligible members in 16 tribunals, 229 extension orders issued.
Tuesday (day of hearing)Court asked the Centre to take instructions on a further one-month stop-gap extension coterminous with fresh appointments.
WednesdayMatter posted for the Attorney General's response.

Who has a stake

Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Surya Kant — Ensuring tribunals do not become defunct and that the Centre gives a definite assurance that posts will be filled.
Union government / Attorney General R Venkataramani — Opposes continuing ad-hoc extensions, saying they hinder fresh appointments under the 2026 Act.
Retiring tribunal members and chairpersons — Whether they can continue in service; 248 found eligible, 229 already issued extension orders, 19 pending.
Bar associations of tribunals — Told the court that working of certain tribunals is impacted by retirements and sought interim continuation.
National Green Tribunal (NGT) — Petitioners argued that excluding members who exhausted tenure or crossed the age limit would jeopardise NGT's functioning.
National Tribunals Commission (to be constituted) — Tasked with selections via a search-cum-selection committee, performance review, complaints inquiry and data compilation.

Why it matters

Tribunals handle large volumes of specialised litigation, and vacancies at the top can effectively paralyse them, leaving litigants without a forum. The dispute also tests the boundary between Parliament's power to legislate on tribunal service conditions and the judiciary's insistence on independence from executive influence, an issue that has now produced three rounds of litigation since 2021.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 was struck down by the Supreme Court in November 2025 as a 'legislative override'; four-year tenure and minimum entry age of 50 were invalidated.
Madras Bar Association case (July 2021) first struck down the provisions that the 2021 Act repackaged.
Tribunals Reforms Act 2026: five-year tenure; maximum age 70 years (67 in some cases).
National Tribunals Commission: chairperson is a former Supreme Court judge or retired high court chief justice; two judicial and two technical members.
NTC functions: selection through search-cum-selection committee, performance review, inquiry into complaints, data on tribunal working.
Centre's figures: 248 members eligible in 16 tribunals; 229 extension orders issued, 19 in process.

Mains framing

The recurring litigation over tribunal appointments reflects an unresolved tension between legislative competence and judicial insistence on tribunal independence: after the Madras Bar Association ruling of July 2021, Parliament's Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 was found in November 2025 to have merely repackaged unconstitutional provisions, notably the four-year tenure and minimum entry age of 50, amounting to a legislative override. The consequence is institutional: with retirements outpacing fresh selections, bar associations report that certain tribunals are not functioning, and petitioners warn that strict application of tenure and age caps under the Tribunals Reforms Act 2026 would jeopardise bodies such as the NGT. The Supreme Court's interim approach, seeking a one-month stop-gap extension coterminous with fresh appointments, balances continuity against the Centre's concern that ad-hoc arrangements themselves delay recruitment. The durable fix lies in operationalising the National Tribunals Commission the 2025 judgment mandated, as a structural safeguard for transparent selection, uniform administration and insulation from executive influence, so that vacancies are anticipated and filled before incumbents retire rather than managed through repeated court-ordered extensions.

Key terms

Tribunals Reforms Act 2026: New law passed by Parliament providing a five-year tenure, maximum age of 70 (67 in some cases) and creation of the National Tribunals Commission.
National Tribunals Commission (NTC): Body directed by the Supreme Court as a structural safeguard, to handle tribunal selections, performance review, complaints and data collection.
Legislative override: Legislature re-enacting a provision already declared unconstitutional without curing the defects identified by the court.
Search-cum-selection committee: Mechanism through which the NTC is to select chairpersons and members of tribunals.
Coterminous extension: A stop-gap continuation of retiring members that ends automatically when fresh appointments are made.
Madras Bar Association case (July 2021): Supreme Court ruling that struck down tribunal service conditions later repackaged in the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021.

Practice questions

Discuss the constitutional issues raised by repeated legislative re-enactment of provisions struck down by the Supreme Court, with reference to the Tribunal Reforms Acts of 2021 and 2026.
How can a National Tribunals Commission strengthen the independence and efficiency of tribunals in India? Examine its proposed composition and functions.
Vacancies in tribunals amount to a denial of access to justice. Critically evaluate in the light of the Supreme Court's stop-gap extension orders.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyKerala drafts bill to set standards for elderly care →

← All stories