Supreme Court Seeks Tribunal Leadership Views While Reviewing NCLT and NCLAT Infrastructure Concerns

A fresh discussion on tribunal infrastructure

The Supreme Court on 29 October 2026 took up a suo motu proceeding concerning infrastructure and basic amenities at the Principal Bench and regional benches of the National Company Law Tribunal. During the hearing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant indicated that the Court would request the Presidents of the NCLT and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal to provide their views on the requirements of the institutions.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The available live account records an exchange with the Attorney General and counsel about the state of facilities and the need for input from tribunal leadership. It does not provide a signed order, an approved expenditure figure or a binding implementation deadline. Those matters must not be treated as decided.

Submissions and observations at the hearing

Attorney General R Venkataramani told the Bench that a government status report had been shared with the NCLT and proposed a meeting. The contents of that report were not reproduced in the accessible account, so its conclusions cannot be independently stated. A senior advocate criticised the pace of progress and said that tribunal infrastructure was under severe pressure, referring to courts functioning at half strength. That statement is a submission made during the hearing, not a finding of fact made by the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju also referred to the difficulties surrounding personal-guarantor matters. The Chief Justice then suggested obtaining the viewpoints of the Presidents of both tribunals because they would be familiar with their institutions’ operational needs. The proposal points toward gathering direct administrative information before deciding what further intervention, if any, is appropriate.

Why the NCLT and NCLAT are central to business disputes

The NCLT is constituted under the Companies Act, 2013 and exercises jurisdiction over specified company-law matters. It is also the adjudicating authority for corporate insolvency resolution and liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The NCLAT hears statutory appeals in the matters assigned to it. Their effective functioning therefore matters to creditors, companies, employees, investors and persons involved in insolvency proceedings.

Infrastructure is more than the availability of a courtroom. Tribunal administration depends on hearing rooms, functioning filing systems, reliable digital access, adequate administrative support and accessible facilities for litigants and counsel. A shortfall in any one area can affect how efficiently matters are listed and processed. The hearing raised those concerns in broad terms, without verifying a specific national shortfall or announcing a quantified remedial programme.

The significance of consulting tribunal Presidents

A tribunal President is positioned to identify recurring operational problems across benches and to explain how those problems affect day-to-day adjudication. Obtaining such information can help a court distinguish urgent practical needs from proposals requiring coordination with the executive or other administrative authorities. The Chief Justice’s stated intention to seek their views should therefore be understood as a step in the fact-gathering process.

The reported discussion does not establish that the Supreme Court has transferred budgetary authority, ordered new appointments, fixed staff strengths or directed immediate construction. Those would be separate actions requiring a clear operative order or official notification. A careful reading preserves the distinction between a concern expressed in court, a proposal to consult relevant officials and an enforceable direction.

What happens next

The next verifiable milestone will be the formal record of the hearing and any response from the Presidents of the NCLT and NCLAT or from the government. That material could clarify the facilities under consideration, the nature of the identified gaps and the institutional responsibilities for addressing them. Until then, neither a completion timetable nor a particular allocation of resources can be reported as having been approved.

For litigants, the immediate significance is that the highest court is examining whether tribunal facilities are adequate for their statutory workload. For lawyers and insolvency professionals, the matter merits attention because administrative capacity influences access to hearings and the timely processing of cases. The hearing has opened a route for more detailed institutional input, but the operative outcome remains subject to the subsequent judicial record.