The recent stinging observation by the Supreme Court that the Corporate Affairs Ministry had ‘hijacked’ staff appointments in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) serves as a sharp reminder that the government must administer the tribunal at arm’s length and be seen doing so.
Though the government has now clarified that the tribunal handles staff recruitment, the executive’s field of influence does extend to the number of staff, their tenure and compensation. It is essential to ensure that the mechanism for resolving corporate disputes is insulated from the government machinery to the extent possible. At any rate, there should be no obvious conflicts of interest. The NCLT functions directly under the administrative control of the MCA — the very same Ministry that frequently appears as a principal petitioner. This does not tick any boxes with respect to transparency and accountability. There are two major issues of perspective here: the apparent lack of an arm’s length distance between the Centre and the NCLT; and at a broader level, the need to ensure judicial independence and separation of powers as Constitutional principles — which explains the apex court’s concern. The Tribunals Reform Bill, 2026 came into being on the premise of ensuring judicial independence and separation of powers. This was following a Supreme Court judgement a year ago in Madras High Court vs Union of India which takes a dim view on government interference in tribunals’ processes. So, it is strange that the NCLT remains outside the ambit of the new law, even as NCLAT is included.
Be that as it may, only 67 of the 320 administrative posts are now filled at the tribunal, threatening a grinding halt to operations. Among judicial and technical members, 16 posts remain empty. . Administrative and budgetary control of the NCLT and NCLAT should be shifted entirely out of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, placing it under an independent framework. The NCLTs must pivot away from benches with two or more members to single-member benches to double institutional disposal capacity. The current 62 positions were constituted for the Companies Act; the IBC was an immense additional responsibility. Recruitment processes should help ensure zero vacancy and those for administrative staff must begin on a war footing. Rules must welcome younger, but proven, professionals in the age group of 35 to 40 assessed for knowledge of basic economics, law, and policy, encouraging them to build careers of two decades or more in the tribunals.
NCLT needs to be an ease-of-doing-business institution. Its annual reports claiming quick resolutions via e-filings mask a reality where some benches still demand physical copies, slowing corporate resolution to a crawl. The count of pending cases under the IBC stood at 14,813 at the end of March 2026. A vital pillar of corporate dispute resolution and key investment flows must be credible, efficient and independent.
Published on November 6, 2026
