The current tribunal system in India is based on a model that is fundamentally at odds with the principles of judicial independence. The appointment and the funds of the tribunals are controlled by their parent ministry. 

Ministries are responsible for appointing members and paying their salaries and the same members are deciding the cases in which they are a party or deciding over a policy which is made by the same parent ministry.⁶

The current system of administration poses major roadblocks-

• Principle of ‘Nemo Judex in Causa Sua’

A fundamental principle of natural justice states that ‘No one should be a judge in their own case’⁷. While in the current system, if a citizen or an entity wants to challenge a decision by the ministry by going before a tribunals whose members’ salaries, infrastructure, specialised staff, and even travel approvals are managed by the very ministry being sued, this creates a conflict of interest that is fatal to judicial impartiality and can impact public confidence in quasi-judicial bodies.

• Doctrine of Separation of Powers

Indian democracy follows the Westminster model under which judicial independence and the separation of judicial power from executive are paramount. Whereas in practice, even after

multiple remarks from the apex court, the integrated system of executive and judiciary still operates as a tribunal.  In L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997), a seven-judge bench raised concerns over the independence of quasi-judicial bodies. It can be inferred from the judgment that the apex court wanted a proper separation of powers rather than the current mix of the executive and the judiciary.

• Dependence on Parent Ministry

In the landmark case of Union of India vs. R. Gandhi (2010), the Supreme Court identified a fundamental structural flaw in the way tribunals are managed in India. The Court observed-

“But in India, unfortunately Tribunals have not achieved full independence…When the Tribunals are formed, they are mostly dependent on their sponsoring department for funding, infrastructure and even space for functioning…Unless wide-ranging reforms as were implemented in the United Kingdom and as were suggested by Chandra Kumar are brought about, Tribunals in India will not be considered as independent.”

• Secondary Duty given less priority

The parent ministries prioritise their primary executive functions , due to which tribunal administration is often given less priority resulting in delayed appointments, infrastructure and staffing challenges. Few examples are-

1. NCLT Delhi Bench, one court did not have a hall from 2019 to 2024 which resulted in Court hall No. 5 and 6 working half days for 5 years. 
2. Supreme Court in NGT Bar Association (Western Zone) vs. Union of India noted that NGT is operating with 7 members including one chairman, three judicial and three technical members, despite the mandate being a minimum of 10 members at all times.