Tribunals Reforms Act 2021

Topic: Justice Delivery: Subordinate Courts, Tribunals, Legal Aid and Judicial Reforms · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 (Act 33 of 2021) is a law that abolished 9 appellate bodies and moved their work to High Courts and other existing courts. It also set the rules for choosing tribunal members, how long they serve and how old they must be, including a 4-year tenure and a minimum age of 50 [1][6].

It matters because the Act brought back rules the Supreme Court had already struck down. In November 2025 the Court struck down these rules again and ordered a National Tribunals Commission [3]. Parliament then passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026, which repeals the Act [1][2].

Explanation

How the Act came about

• A tribunal is a body set up by law to decide disputes in one field, such as tax or company law. It works outside the regular ladder of courts.

• The steps, in order: 1. 13 February 2021: the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2021 was introduced in the Lok Sabha. 2. April 2021: the government issued an Ordinance (a temporary law made by the President when Parliament is not sitting) in place of the Bill [6]. 3. July 2021: the Supreme Court struck down the Ordinance's 4-year tenure and minimum age of 50 [5]. 4. 2 August 2021: the Bill was withdrawn [6]. 5. 2021: Parliament passed the Act, which put the same rules back.

• Legislative override (when Parliament passes again, in almost the same words, a rule the Court struck down, without removing the reason the Court gave) is what critics called the Act.

What the Act laid down

• Service rules [6]:
• Tenure: 4 years.
• Minimum age: 50.

• Upper age limit: 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members.

• Selection:

• A search-cum-selection committee (the panel that picks candidates) sends two names for each post.

• The government decides "preferably" within three months. Because of the word "preferably", the deadline is not binding.

• Who sits on the committee [6]:

• The CJI or a Supreme Court judge he nominates, as chair.
• Two government Secretaries.
• A sitting or retired tribunal chair, or a retired senior judge.
• The Secretary of the ministry concerned, with no vote.

The 9 appellate bodies it abolished [5][6]

Body abolished	Work moved to
Film Certification Appellate Tribunal	High Court
Trade Marks Appellate Board; Patents Appellate Board (both under the IPAB)	High Court
Copyright Appellate Board	Commercial Court / Commercial Division
Customs Authority for Advance Rulings	High Court
Airport Appellate Tribunal	Central government or High Court
Highway Appellate Tribunal	Civil Court
Plant Varieties Appellate Tribunal	High Court
Geographical Indications Appellate Board	High Court

Limits and weak points

• The executive still had a big say:
• Two of the voting committee members were government Secretaries.
• The government could choose between two names.

• The government is the biggest litigant (the party that brings or fights the most cases) before most tribunals. If it controls the judges' careers, it is in effect judging its own case.

• No judicial impact assessment:

• A judicial impact assessment is a study, done before a law is passed, of how many new cases the law will send to the courts.

• Without one, the abolished bodies' work went straight to High Courts that were already overloaded.

• No independent body: tribunals stayed under their "parent" ministries. These are the same ministries whose cases the tribunals hear.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional base:
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) added Articles 323A and 323B [5].
• Art. 323A lets Parliament set up administrative tribunals for the service matters of public servants [5].
• Art. 323B lets Parliament or a state legislature set up tribunals for listed subjects, such as taxation [5].

• In 2010 the Court held that the Art. 323B list is not exclusive [5].

• The Court's test: a tribunal that replaces a High Court must be as independent as a High Court.

• The cases that came before the Act:
• L. Chandra Kumar (1997): a High Court division bench can review a tribunal's rulings. The Court also asked for one nodal ministry, the Law Ministry, to run all tribunals [5]. Judicial review (the courts' power to strike down laws that break the Constitution) is part of the basic structure (the core features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot destroy).
• R. Gandhi (2010): technical members must not outnumber judicial members on a bench [5].
• Madras Bar Association (2014): struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act 2005. Tribunals should get their support from the Law Ministry [5].
• Rojer Mathew (2019): struck down the 2017 Rules made under the Finance Act 2017, which had merged tribunals from 26 to 19. The Court held that short tenures give the executive control [5].
• MBA (November 2020): fixed a five-year tenure and made advocates with 10 years' practice eligible. It also called for a National Tribunals Commission [5].

• MBA (July 2021): struck down the Ordinance's 4-year tenure and minimum age of 50 [5].

• 19 November 2025, MBA v. Union of India (2025 INSC 1330; (2026) 2 SCC 1) [3][4][1]:

• It struck down the Act's provisions on eligibility, manner of appointment and length of tenure [3].
• These provisions had been copied from the 2021 Ordinance, which the Court had already struck down [3].
• They undermined judicial independence and separation of powers [3].
• The Court said the term should be 5 years, with reappointment allowed. The minimum age of 50 went against earlier rulings [3].

• It ordered the Centre to set up a National Tribunals Commission within four months [3].

• The 2026 Bill, the outcome:

• Passage: the Lok Sabha passed it on 10 August 2026 and the Rajya Sabha on 11 August 2026 [2].
• Repeal: Clause 24 repeals the 2021 Act [1].
• Protection for sitting members: those appointed under the 2021 Act cannot have their service terms made worse during their term [1].
• The NTC: the Bill sets up a National Tribunals Commission, made up of a chairperson, 2 judicial members and 2 technical members [1].
• Tenure: 5 years, with reappointment based on performance [1].

Don't confuse with

• Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026: the 2021 Act weakened tribunal independence with a 4-year tenure and a 2-name panel. The 2026 Bill repeals the Act and sets up the NTC, with a 5-year tenure and 1 name plus 1 on a waiting list [1].
• Finance Act 2017 (Part XIV): it merged tribunals (26 → 19) through a money bill (a bill only about taxes, borrowing or spending, which the Rajya Sabha can delay by only 14 days) [5]. The 2021 Act abolished 9 appellate bodies.
• Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021: this was the temporary law the Court struck down in July 2021. The Act is the permanent law that copied it, and the Court struck down its key provisions in November 2025 [5][3].
• NCLAT and ITAT: these tribunals continue. They were not among the 9 bodies the 2021 Act abolished.

Prelims Hooks

• The 2021 Act abolished 9 appellate bodies, including the FCAT, IPAB, Airport Appellate Tribunal and Customs Authority for Advance Rulings. Trap: the NCLAT and ITAT were not abolished [5][6].
• Under the 2021 Act, the Copyright Appellate Board's work went to the Commercial Court, not the High Court. The Highway Appellate Tribunal's work went to the Civil Court [5][6].
• 2021 Act service rules: 4-year tenure, minimum age 50, upper age 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members, and a 2-name panel [6].
• 19 November 2025, MBA v. UoI (2025 INSC 1330): the Court struck down the Act's tenure, eligibility and appointment provisions and ordered an NTC within 4 months [3].
• Clause 24 of the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 repeals the 2021 Act [1].
• Arts. 323A and 323B were added by the 42nd Amendment (1976), not by the 2021 Act [5].

Mains Points

• Legislative override and the rule of law:
• The 2021 Act passed again rules the Court had already struck down in July 2021 [3].
• Parliament can answer a binding judgment only by removing its basis, not by passing the same law again.

• Ignoring this weakens separation of powers, which is part of the basic structure.

• Abolishing tribunals and access to justice:

• The 9 bodies were abolished without a judicial impact assessment, which Rojer Mathew (2019) had asked for [5].
• Their cases went to High Courts that were already overloaded. In June 2021, 91,885 High Court cases had been pending for over 30 years [5].

• Specialist fields such as IP and film certification lost expert benches.

• Has the 2026 Bill fixed the problem?

• Gains: the NTC is led by judges, the CJI is consulted, tenure is 5 years, and the government must appoint within 3 months [1].
• Gaps:
  • A government Secretary still votes on the selection committee.
  • The NTC's Secretary is appointed by the Centre, and its money comes from Central grants (₹27.14 crore a year).
  • Qualifications are left to rules made by the government [1].
• Real test: whether vacancies fall. In February 2021 the Armed Forces Tribunal had 23 of 34 posts vacant [5].

Related concepts

• Madras Bar Association cases
• National Tribunals Commission

Read more

• Tribunal independence: the Madras Bar Association cases, the 2021 Act and the 2026 Bill