Introduction
On September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India expressed grave concern over the growing trend of retired High Court Judges declining appointments as members of various Tribunals, particularly the National Green Tribunal (NGT). A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan pulled up the Union Government, stating that the fault lies with the Centre for failing to provide adequate facilities and dignity to Tribunal members.
The observations came while hearing a writ petition filed by the NGT Bar Association (Western Zone), highlighting the issue of vacancies in Tribunals due to reluctance of retired Judges to accept such posts.
This development raises critical questions about the state of tribunalisation in India, judicial dignity, and the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution bodies created to ease the burden of High Courts.
Why Retired Judges Are Declining Tribunal Appointments
During the hearing, the Court noted that several retired High Court Judges had refused Tribunal appointments because of the lack of basic facilities and infrastructure.
Justice Nagarathna remarked that after appointment orders are issued, retired Judges face uncertainty regarding housing, staff support, office amenities, and even basic stationery. Shockingly, Tribunal Chairpersons — many of them former Chief Justices — are reportedly given the “most rickety cars” or forced to request even for stationery supplies.
The Court highlighted that this lack of dignity and infrastructure forces Judges to reconsider accepting such posts. Justice Nagarathna bluntly told the Union:
“You have created the Tribunals. The Parliament has passed the Acts. Judicial impact is not taken. No expenditure is given. They have to go on begging – give us stationery, give us housing, give us this, give us car. The most rickety car in your department is given to the Tribunal Chairman. How are you treating the former Chief Justices and Judges?”
Supreme Court’s Criticism of the Union Government
The bench strongly disapproved of the Centre’s negligence and placed the blame squarely on the Union Government. Justice Nagarathna observed that judicial dignity must be protected, especially when retired Judges agree to continue public service after their retirement.
The Court warned that if facilities cannot be provided, the entire concept of tribunalisation should be reconsidered:
- Either provide proper infrastructure and support to Tribunal members, or
- Abolish the Tribunals altogether and restore jurisdiction to the High Courts.
This is not the first time such concerns have been raised. The Supreme Court has repeatedly questioned the working conditions of Tribunals and the lack of uniform standards across different States.
Reference to Earlier Directions
Justice Mahadevan recalled that only a week earlier, a separate bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan had directed the Union Government to upgrade facilities in National Company Law Tribunals (NCLTs). The lack of infrastructure and staff has been a recurring issue in several Tribunals, including:
- National Green Tribunal (NGT)
- National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
- Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs)
- Administrative Tribunals
The Court stressed the need for a committee of different Ministries, including the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), to identify lapses and create a uniform policy for providing housing, transport, office facilities, and staff to Tribunal members.
The Issue of Vacancies in Tribunals
The case arose out of a petition filed by the NGT Bar Association (Western Zone) pointing out that vacancies in the NGT were stalling environmental litigation.
The Union Government admitted that two retired Judges, who were offered appointments as Judicial Members, had refused to take charge. This has forced the appointment process to restart, leading to further delays.
While the petitioner requested that existing members be allowed to continue beyond retirement until new appointments are made, the Supreme Court declined. Instead, it directed the Union to fill the vacancies “as expeditiously as possible” and adjourned the matter till December 16, 2025.
Larger Concerns: Tribunalisation in India
The Supreme Court’s remarks highlight a deeper structural issue. India has seen rapid tribunalisation of justice over the last few decades. Tribunals were created to:
- Reduce the burden on High Courts
- Provide expert adjudication in technical fields like environment, company law, taxation, etc.
- Ensure faster disposal of cases
However, the failure to provide adequate infrastructure, uniform procedures, and independence has led to widespread criticism. In fact, many States have abolished Administrative Tribunals after finding them ineffective.
Justice Nagarathna warned that tribunalisation should not become a “negative experiment” that undermines judicial dignity and efficiency.
Key Takeaways from the Hearing
- Union Government at Fault: The Supreme Court held the Centre responsible for creating Tribunals without providing the necessary infrastructure.
- Judicial Dignity: Retired Judges, especially former Chief Justices, must be treated with dignity when appointed to Tribunals.
- Need for Uniform Facilities: A committee involving multiple ministries must create standard policies for infrastructure and amenities.
- Vacancies Must Be Filled Urgently: Tribunal vacancies are delaying justice; the Court expects appointments to be completed quickly.
- Possibility of Abolishing Tribunals: If the Government cannot provide proper facilities, the Court suggested abolishing Tribunals and restoring jurisdiction to High Courts.
Implications for Indian Judiciary and Governance
This case is significant because it addresses the credibility crisis of Tribunals in India. The reluctance of retired Judges to join reflects not only poor facilities but also a lack of respect shown to these institutions.
For litigants, the consequences are serious:
- Delays in Justice: Vacancies mean environmental, corporate, and financial disputes remain unresolved.
- Loss of Faith: If Tribunals are perceived as ineffective, citizens may lose trust in them.
- Burden on High Courts: Without effective Tribunals, High Courts will face renewed pressure.
The Supreme Court’s warning should serve as a wake-up call for the Union Government to reassess its approach towards Tribunals.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s sharp observations in NGT Bar Association Western Zone v. Union of India underscore a fundamental truth: institutions of justice cannot function without dignity, infrastructure, and respect.
If India wants tribunalisation to succeed, the Union must treat Tribunal members — many of whom are former Chief Justices and High Court Judges — with the same dignity accorded to sitting Judges.
Otherwise, as Justice Nagarathna rightly observed, it may be better to abolish Tribunals altogether and let High Courts handle these matters.
This judgment is not just about facilities; it is about preserving the integrity of India’s justice delivery system. The ball is now in the Centre’s court.
Also Read
Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directions To Ensure Humane Conditions In Beggars’ Homes Across India
Supreme Court Stays Key Provisions of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: A Detailed Analysis
