NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court raised concern Monday over vacancies and inadequate facilities at the National Company Law Tribunal and its appellate tribunal, saying institutions handling major banking and infrastructure disputes cannot function without basic staff, space and technology.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a proceeding concerning appointments of judicial and technical members and the condition of NCLT benches nationwide.
Half-day benches and permanent workloads
The NCLT Principal Bench Bar Association told the court that at least 18 benches were sitting for only half days under a roster introduced in August, a consequence of vacancies and retirements. It also cited weak digital infrastructure and a shortage of permanent support staff.
The tribunals occupy a central place in India’s corporate-law system. They handle insolvency, company disputes and appeals involving banks, lenders and large infrastructure projects. Delays can hold up business restructurings and reduce the value available to creditors.
The bench described the NCLT and NCLAT as a government “lifeline” because disputes involving public-sector banks and major projects routinely come before them.
Institutional capacity as access to justice
Courts often focus on doctrine, but tribunal capacity can determine whether legal rights have practical value. An insolvency framework built around strict timelines is particularly vulnerable when benches lack members or can hear matters only part of the day.
The proceeding remains ongoing. Monday’s observations signal close judicial scrutiny, but they are not a final ruling on the staffing and infrastructure measures the government must adopt.
Delay changes the value of a corporate case
Insolvency disputes are unusually sensitive to time. A factory can lose customers, employees and operating value while creditors wait. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was built around compressed timelines because a delayed restructuring often produces less for everyone than a prompt decision.
When a bench sits only half a day or lacks a technical member, delay accumulates across admissions, resolution-plan approvals, liquidation applications and routine procedural requests. The formal right to a hearing remains, but its economic value erodes.
Appointments are only part of capacity
Filling member vacancies is necessary but insufficient. Tribunals need trained registry staff, functioning hearing rooms, reliable video systems and searchable electronic records. A member handling a heavy list without research or administrative support cannot use the day efficiently.
Permanent staff also protect institutional memory. Repeated reliance on temporary personnel can produce inconsistent filing practices and force each incoming member to rebuild basic systems.
Independence and administration
Because the government is a frequent litigant and also controls appointments and resources, tribunal administration raises questions of independence. Adequate funding should not depend on whether current decisions please the executive branch.
The Supreme Court can require status reports, set appointment deadlines and monitor facilities, but day-to-day improvement must come from sustained administrative planning. Emergency directions after vacancies arise are less effective than a calendar that begins selection well before a member retires.
What meaningful compliance would look like
The government should be able to identify sanctioned posts, current vacancies, expected appointment dates and infrastructure gaps for each bench. Public data on case age, adjournments and hours of sitting would allow the court and bar to measure whether interventions work.
Technology can reduce travel and filing delays, but it should not become a substitute for enough adjudicators. Digital portals fail when orders are uploaded late, records are incomplete or parties cannot obtain urgent listings.
The case places institutional design inside the idea of access to justice. For companies, workers and creditors, a tribunal that exists on paper but cannot decide within commercially meaningful time is not merely inconvenient — it changes substantive outcomes.
