Pratidin
Polity and governance3 October 2026The Hindu, Page 8GS2

Centre issues rules creating a National Tribunals Commission to select tribunal members

Who should choose the judges of India's tribunals, the government or an independent body? New rules set up one.

Published 3 October 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work

The Centre has issued the National Tribunals Commission and Qualification, Selection and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Tribunals Rules, 2026, dated 30 September 2026, The Hindu reported on 3 October 2026. The rules create a National Tribunals Commission (NTC), headquartered in Delhi, with a chairperson and four members, two judicial and two technical. The chairperson must be a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. The chairperson will be paid ₹2.5 lakh a month and each member ₹2.25 lakh. The Commission will handle the selection of chairpersons and members for 16 tribunals and appellate bodies. The stated aim is to improve efficiency and to ensure independence, transparency and uniformity in appointments.

The rules also fix the process. Work to fill a vacancy must begin at least six months before it arises. Candidates will be assessed by search-cum-selection committees through expert evaluation, a personal interaction and written exercises. The background is a long contest between Parliament and the Supreme Court over who controls tribunals. On 19 November 2025 the Court struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, holding that they violated the separation of powers and judicial independence, and directed the creation of an independent National Tribunals Commission. A Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 seeks to repeal the 2021 Act.

Tribunals are bodies outside the regular courts that decide specialised disputes, such as service matters of government employees, tax, company law or the environment. The 42nd Amendment of 1976 added Articles 323A and 323B to the Constitution to allow them. In L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997), a seven-judge bench held that the power of judicial review of the High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure, so a law cannot exclude High Court jurisdiction without an alternative arrangement for judicial review. Supporters of an NTC say a single independent body can end executive control over appointments and service conditions, a concern because the government is the largest litigant before tribunals. Critics of the new rules will watch whether a body whose composition and pay are set by executive rules can be independent in practice.

Practise this in the app: flashcards, quiz and a timed answer
Prelims

Prelims facts

  • Rules dated 30 September 2026 create a National Tribunals Commission, headquartered in Delhi, with a chairperson and four members (two judicial, two technical).
  • The NTC chairperson must be a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice; pay is ₹2.5 lakh a month for the chairperson and ₹2.25 lakh for members.
  • The Commission covers selection for 16 tribunals and appellate bodies, and recruitment must begin at least six months before a vacancy arises.
  • On 19 November 2025 the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and directed an independent National Tribunals Commission.
  • Articles 323A (administrative tribunals) and 323B (tribunals for other matters) were added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976.

Quick recall

Date of the rules creating the National Tribunals Commission?
30 September 2026.
Composition of the National Tribunals Commission?
A chairperson and four members: two judicial and two technical.
Who can be the NTC chairperson?
A retired Supreme Court judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court.
Monthly pay of the NTC chairperson and members?
₹2.5 lakh for the chairperson and ₹2.25 lakh for each member.
How many tribunals and appellate bodies does the NTC cover?
16.
How early must recruitment for a tribunal vacancy begin under the new rules?
At least six months before the vacancy arises.
When did the Supreme Court strike down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021?
19 November 2025.
Which amendment added Articles 323A and 323B?
The 42nd Amendment, 1976.

Prelims practice question

With reference to tribunals in India, consider the following statements:
1. Articles 323A and 323B were part of the Constitution as originally adopted.
2. In L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India, the Supreme Court held the power of judicial review of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to be part of the basic structure.
3. Under the 2026 rules, the chairperson of the National Tribunals Commission must be a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. 1 and 2 only
  2. 2 and 3 only
  3. 1 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer

Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is wrong: Articles 323A and 323B form Part XIVA, inserted by the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Statement 2 is correct: a seven-judge bench held so in 1997. Statement 3 is correct as per the rules dated 30 September 2026.

Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions

Recurring theme: Tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies and the independence of adjudicating institutions from the executive

  1. 2018 · GS2 · 15 marksAnswers it directlyUse it in the body

    How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India.

    How to use this

    Use it to show that tribunals are constitutionally valid but cannot oust judicial review, and that courts have repeatedly policed executive control over them, most recently leading to the National Tribunals Commission.

    • Articles 323A and 323B, added by the 42nd Amendment of 1976, allow tribunals for specialised disputes such as service matters, tax, company law and environment.
    • L. Chandra Kumar (1997), a seven-judge bench, held High Court and Supreme Court judicial review part of the basic structure, so a law cannot exclude High Court jurisdiction without an alternative arrangement.
    • On 19 November 2025 the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 for violating separation of powers and judicial independence, leading to NTC Rules dated 30 September 2026.
  2. 2023 · GS2 · 10 marksCovers one partUse it in the example

    "Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy". Comment.

    How to use this

    Use it to show that judicial independence extends to tribunals, where executive control over appointments was struck down because the government is itself the largest litigant.

    • On 19 November 2025 the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 as violating separation of powers and judicial independence, and directed an independent National Tribunals Commission.
    • The NTC, created by rules dated 30 September 2026, is chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge or High Court Chief Justice and selects members for 16 tribunals and appellate bodies.
    • Critics will watch whether a body whose composition and pay are set by executive rules can be independent in practice.
  3. 2015 · GS2 · 12.5 marksCovers one partUse it in the example

    To achieve the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of experiences in the recent past.

    How to use this

    Use the National Tribunals Commission as a recent example of building an independent selection mechanism for quasi-judicial bodies, and of the limits of autonomy granted through executive rules.

    • The NTC has a chairperson and four members (two judicial, two technical) and will select chairpersons and members for 16 tribunals and appellate bodies, aiming at independence, transparency and uniformity.
    • Recruitment must begin at least six months before a vacancy arises, with search-cum-selection committees using expert evaluation, personal interaction and written exercises.
    • Concern: since its composition and pay are set out in executive rules, the government can amend them, so tenure and administrative support will decide its real autonomy.

Mains practice question

The Supreme Court has repeatedly called for an independent National Tribunals Commission. Discuss how such a body can strengthen the independence and efficiency of tribunals in India. (150 words)

Model answer

Tribunals, allowed by Articles 323A and 323B (42nd Amendment, 1976), decide specialised disputes. Rules dated 30 September 2026 now create a National Tribunals Commission (NTC), after the Supreme Court struck down key parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 in November 2025.

How the NTC helps independence

  • Insulates appointments: the government is the largest litigant before tribunals, so it should not control selection.
  • Judicial leadership: the chairperson must be a retired Supreme Court judge or High Court Chief Justice.
  • Uniform rules: one body for 16 tribunals and appellate bodies.

How it helps efficiency

  • Timely recruitment: the process must begin six months before a vacancy arises.
  • Merit-based selection: expert evaluation, interaction and written exercises.

Concerns

  • Its composition and pay are set out in executive rules, which the government can amend.
  • Tenure and administrative support will decide its real autonomy.

An NTC backed by law and adequate resources can keep tribunals specialised and still independent of the government that appears before them.

The basics

Why this matters

India has created many tribunals to take load off the courts and bring expertise to technical disputes. But who appoints their members, for how long and on what pay decides whether they are truly independent. This story brings together constitutional provisions, a line of Supreme Court judgments and the separation of powers.

What tribunals are

Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies: they decide disputes like courts but sit outside the regular court system. Their constitutional base is Articles 323A and 323B, added in 1976. The Supreme Court's ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India made judicial review by the High Courts part of the basic structure.

Courts and tribunals
Regular courts
  • Part of the judiciary under the Constitution
  • Judges appointed through the collegium
  • Decide all kinds of disputes
vs
Tribunals
  • Created by law under Articles 323A and 323B or other statutes
  • Members include judicial and technical experts
  • Decide disputes in a specialised field

The new Commission

The rules of 30 September 2026 set up the National Tribunals Commission.

The National Tribunals Commission
  1. 1ChairpersonA retired Supreme Court judge or retired High Court Chief Justice; paid ₹2.5 lakh a month
  2. 2Two judicial membersBring legal and judicial experience; paid ₹2.25 lakh a month
  3. 3Two technical membersBring subject expertise; paid ₹2.25 lakh a month
  4. 4Search-cum-selection committeesAssess candidates through expert evaluation, interaction and written exercises

The long contest

The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 was Parliament's attempt to fix tribunals' service conditions. The Supreme Court found parts of it violated Separation of powers and judicial independence.

Tribunals: from 1976 to the 2026 rules
  1. 197642nd Amendment adds Articles 323A and 323B
  2. 1997L. Chandra Kumar: judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure
  3. 2020Madras Bar Association case: Court directs a National Tribunals Commission
  4. 2021Tribunals Reforms Act passed
  5. 19 November 2025Court strikes down key provisions of the 2021 Act
  6. 30 September 2026Rules create the National Tribunals Commission

The takeaway

An appointments body is only as independent as its own terms. The Commission's real test will be how it works, not how it is written.

Go deeper

In one line: New rules dated 30 September 2026 set up a National Tribunals Commission to handle selection for 16 tribunals, after the Supreme Court struck down key parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

Why it matters for UPSC

Tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies and separation of powers are in the GS2 syllabus. Mains 2018 asked about the constitutional validity and competency of tribunals.

The core idea

Tribunals rest on Articles 323A and 323B. L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India made judicial review by the High Courts part of the basic structure. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 tried to set their service terms, but the Supreme Court found parts of it against Separation of powers and judicial independence and asked for an independent commission. The 2026 rules create it.

Numbers and dates to remember

  • Rules dated: 30 September 2026
  • NTC: chairperson and four members (two judicial, two technical), headquartered in Delhi
  • Pay: ₹2.5 lakh a month (chairperson), ₹2.25 lakh (members)
  • Coverage: 16 tribunals and appellate bodies
  • Recruitment to start at least six months before a vacancy
  • Supreme Court judgment on the 2021 Act: 19 November 2025

Where to go next

Go deeper: Who should control tribunals?

The executive's case. Tribunals are created by law, so Parliament and the government argue they should set qualifications, tenure and pay. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 also abolished several appellate tribunals and shifted their cases to High Courts and other bodies.

The Court's case. The government is a party in many tribunal disputes, on tax, service matters or regulation. If it also controls who sits on the bench and whether they are reappointed, the tribunal is not independent. The Court found the 2021 Act's provisions on appointments, tenure and service conditions gave the executive excessive control, against Separation of powers and judicial independence. L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India had already made judicial review part of the basic structure. In Madras Bar Association v Union of India (2020), the Court directed the Union to set up a National Tribunals Commission. In its 19 November 2025 judgment it struck down key provisions of the 2021 Act and repeated that direction, with a four-month deadline.

The 2026 rules. They give the Commission a judicial head and a fixed process: recruitment six months ahead, and selection through expert evaluation, interaction and written exercises. The stated aim is to improve efficiency and ensure independence, transparency and uniformity in appointments.

Open questions. Its composition and pay are set out in rules, which the executive can amend. Its tenure, staff and budget will decide whether it is independent in practice. The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, which seeks to repeal the 2021 Act, is the next step to watch under Articles 323A and 323B.

Articles 323A and 323B

The constitutional base for tribunals

In one line: Articles 323A and 323B make up Part XIVA of the Constitution, titled Tribunals, inserted by the 42nd Amendment in 1976.

Where they come from

The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed during the Emergency. Among many changes, it inserted a new Part XIVA on tribunals, made up of Articles 323A and 323B. Most of the amendment came into force on 3 January 1977.

Tribunals in practice

The Central Administrative Tribunal was set up in 1985 to decide service matters of government employees, and now has 19 benches. Other tribunals include the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the National Green Tribunal and the Armed Forces Tribunal (set up under a 2007 Act).

Why it is in the news

The National Tribunals Commission will handle selection for tribunals set up under these and other laws.

Where to go next

L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India

Why tribunal decisions can still be challenged in High Courts

In one line: In L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997), a seven-judge bench held that the power of judicial review of the High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure.

What it decided

The Court held that Articles 32 and 226, which give the Supreme Court and the High Courts the power of judicial review, are an integral and essential feature of the Constitution. If a law excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court without setting up an alternative arrangement for judicial review, it violates the basic structure and is beyond Parliament's constituent power.

Why it matters now

Tribunals decide disputes that would otherwise reach courts, so how their members are chosen bears on the same judicial independence. That reasoning runs through the Court's demand for an independent body to select members.

Where to go next

Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

The law whose key provisions the Supreme Court struck down

In one line: The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished several appellate tribunals and set common terms of service for tribunal members.

What it did

It followed a 2021 ordinance. It abolished several appellate tribunals, moving their work to High Courts and other bodies, made the designations of chairman and vice chairman uniform, and laid down a four-year tenure, a minimum age of 50 and a search-cum-selection committee for appointments.

Why it was struck down

On 19 November 2025 the Supreme Court struck down key provisions as giving the executive excessive control over appointments, tenure and service conditions, violating judicial independence and the separation of powers. It found that Parliament had repackaged provisions of the 2021 ordinance that it had already invalidated, and it called the minimum age of 50 arbitrary.

What next

A Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 seeks to repeal the 2021 Act.

Where to go next

Separation of powers and judicial independence

The principle the Court applied to tribunals

In one line: Separation of powers means the legislature, executive and judiciary each keep to their own functions, and judicial independence means judges decide free of pressure from the other two.

In the Constitution

The Constitution does not separate powers rigidly, but Article 50 directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in public services. The Supreme Court has held judicial review to be part of the basic structure, in L. Chandra Kumar (1997).

Applied to tribunals

If the executive controls appointments, reappointment and pay of tribunal members, members may hesitate to rule against it. That is why the Court has insisted on a body like the National Tribunals Commission.

Where to go next

Prelims-style quiz

  1. Consider the following statements about the National Tribunals Commission rules, 2026:
    1. The Commission is headquartered in Delhi.
    2. It has two judicial members and two technical members besides the chairperson.
    3. The chairperson must be a sitting judge of the Supreme Court.
    How many of the statements given above are correct?

    1. Only one
    2. Only two
    3. All three
    4. None
    Show answer

    Answer: (b) Only two. Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is wrong: the chairperson must be a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court.

  2. Consider the following statements:
    Statement-I: The Supreme Court has insisted that tribunals be insulated from executive control over appointments.
    Statement-II: The government is itself a party in many disputes decided by tribunals.
    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

    1. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
    2. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
    3. Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
    4. Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct
    Show answer

    Answer: (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I. Both are correct. Because the government litigates before tribunals on tax, service and regulatory matters, control over who sits on them threatens independence; that is the reason for the Court's insistence.

  3. Consider the following statements about the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and the Supreme Court's judgment of 19 November 2025:
    1. The Act abolished several appellate tribunals and shifted their cases to High Courts and other bodies.
    2. The Act fixed the tenure of tribunal members at four years.
    3. The Court found that the Act repackaged provisions of a 2021 ordinance that it had already invalidated.
    4. The Court held the minimum age of 50 years for members to be arbitrary.
    How many of the statements given above are correct?

    1. Only one
    2. Only two
    3. Only three
    4. All four
    Show answer

    Answer: (d) All four. All four are correct. The Act abolished several appellate tribunals, fixed a four-year tenure and a minimum age of 50; the Court found it re-enacted provisions of the invalidated 2021 ordinance and called the age limit arbitrary.

  4. Consider the following statements:
    1. L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India was decided by a seven-judge bench.
    2. The Supreme Court first directed the setting up of a National Tribunals Commission in its judgment of 19 November 2025.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. 1 only
    2. 2 only
    3. Both 1 and 2
    4. Neither 1 nor 2
    Show answer

    Answer: (a) 1 only. Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is wrong: the Court had already directed a National Tribunals Commission in Madras Bar Association v Union of India in November 2020; the 2025 judgment repeated the direction and set a four-month deadline.

  5. In its judgment of 19 November 2025 on the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, within what time did the Supreme Court direct the Centre to set up a National Tribunals Commission?

    1. Two months
    2. Four months
    3. Six months
    4. One year
    Show answer

    Answer: (b) Four months. The Court directed the Centre to establish the Commission within four months, as a structural safeguard for independence, transparency and uniformity in tribunal appointments.

Syllabus

Related stories

Sources used for this summary