Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT)
The Securities Appellate Tribunal hears appeals against regulatory orders issued by SEBI, IRDAI, and PFRDA, dealing with disputes relating to securities law compliance, penalties, market regulation, insider trading, and investor protection enforcement. It is a specialised body that operates through a centralised bench, designed to combine judicial and domain expertise, but its limited geographical presence constrains throughput.
Empirical trends show strong turnover until 2023, followed by a sharp decline by 2025 (113% to 59%). SAT also faces structural challenges, including lack of contempt powers, complex cases, frequent interim orders and stay petitions, expanding jurisdiction over numerous intermediaries, and limited bench capacity with vacancies, contributing to rising pendency.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The NCDRC exercises appellate and original jurisdiction over high-value consumer disputes within the three-tier structure. Its jurisdiction covers complaints and consumer compensation claims under the Consumer Protection Act.
Despite consistently high disposal rates, including a rate above 100% in 2025, pendency has increased, reflecting high case inflow driven by expanding consumer awareness and litigation volume rather than institutional inefficiency. However, there still exist issues of vacancies, voluminous revision petitions, frequent adjournments by companies to exhaust consumers, need for expert opinions on certain matters.5
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL)
APTEL adjudicates appeals under the Electricity Act, involving tariff regulation, licensing, transmission and distribution issues and sectoral compliance.
The tribunal exhibits persistently low turnover (avg. 17%) and high pendency (86%) due to structural constraints. Electricity disputes often involve extensive technical evidence and regulatory complexity, lengthening adjudication timelines. Further, excessive use of remand powers and weak regulatory capacity increasing the appellate burden were noted to cause increasing backlogs.6
National Green Tribunal (NGT)
The NGT is mandated to adjudicate environmental disputes under specialised statutes such as the Environment (Protection) Act, Air Act, Water Act, and Forest (Conservation) Act. It deals with cases involving environmental protection, conservation of forests, pollution control, and compensation for environmental damage and enforcement of environmental rights.
Although the tribunal earlier maintained high turnover, recent decline (110% to 66%) and rising pendency (36% to 63%) is due to severe vacancies, limited and some non-functional benches, inadequate budgets, parallel litigations and lack of technical expertise, increasing litigation complexity and growing environmental enforcement demands.7
Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)
TDSAT handles telecom, broadcasting, and spectrum-related disputes between telecom service providers, licensors (government), consumers, and regulatory authorities such as TRAI, requiring significant technical expertise.
The tribunal’s limited number of benches, highly specialised jurisdiction, surge in regulatory disputes, complex technological issues and impact of new legislation contribute to consistently low turnover and sustained high pendency levels.
Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)
The AFT adjudicates service matters and court-martial appeals, providing a specialized forum for military justice and service-related grievances.
Its regional bench network previously supported high turnover, but recent declines are due to staffing constraints coupled with mandatory bench structure, increased filing or awareness, government litigation policy as well as non-implementation of judgments.
SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal
This tribunal addresses forfeiture proceedings relating to illegally acquired property, confiscation of assets linked to smuggling or foreign exchange violations under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.
Historically low caseload volumes and modest turnover improvements suggest gradual institutional stabilisation, though pendency remains comparatively high (avg 87%) may be attributable to vacancies, complex procedures, frequent adjournments, systemic overload and lack of infrastructure/ digitisation, though not much literature on the tribunal is available.
Railway Claims Tribunal
The Railway Claims Tribunal adjudicates passenger injury, accident, loss or damage to goods and freight claims and passenger services through multiple benches across India.
It demonstrates exceptional performance, with disposal rates exceeding 200% in 2025. Some of the reforms include standardised claim categories, specialised expertise composition often being retired railway officials, simplified procedures, no-fault liability framework, proactive evidence handling and decentralised bench presence enable rapid adjudication.
National Company Law Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal (NCLT/NCLAT)
These bodies, involving judicial and technical members, adjudicate company law disputes, oppression and mismanagement, insolvency proceedings, mergers, and restructuring matters.
Despite high caseloads, disposal rates remain consistently above 100% from 2023 to 2025. However, fluctuating pendency reflects continuous inflow of insolvency cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, frequent adjournments, complex nature and regulatory overlaps.
Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)
CGIT addresses labour and industrial disputes involving central government establishments, public sector undertakings, and industries under several Unions and cases under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Historically low turnover and a negative disposal trend in 2025 (-50%) indicate serious capacity constraints. A study done by CAG pointed out possible causes for poor performances due to vacancies, legacy backlog, procedural delays in dispute reference, high volume litigations, stay orders from higher courts, ineffective legal representations and complex legal issues.8
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
The ITAT adjudicates appeals in direct tax matters under Income-tax Act, 1961 through an extensive nationwide bench network..
It remains among the most efficient tribunals, consistently (2021-2025) achieving disposal rates exceeding or approaching 100% and maintaining relatively low pendency. High quality orders, precedence, adaptation to technology, accountability and relatively better support eco system from professionals such as chartered accountants help in quicker movement of cases through the system.
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
The CAT hears service disputes involving government employees, functioning as primary forum, replacing civil courts for most service law matters involving Union government personnel.
With multiple benches, mixed composition of judicial and administrative members, procedural flexibility and strong enforcement power, the tribunal demonstrates stable disposal trends (avg 100%), though caseload volume keeps pendency (avg 75%) at moderate levels.
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
CESTAT adjudicates indirect tax appeals involving significant financial and technical complexity, specifically customs duties, central excise, and (historically) service tax disputes against orders passed by adjudicating authorities under Customs Act and Central Excise laws.
While disposal improved in recent years (close to 100%) owing to legal precedents, clear procedures and accessibility, pendency remains high, reflecting intricate evidentiary requirements, high litigation volume especially government litigations, procedural delays.9
Debt Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals (DRT/DRAT)
The DRT adjudicates applications filed by banks and financial institutions for the recovery of debts and the enforcement of security interests. Its jurisdiction is confined to recovery proceedings and related interim reliefs and does not decide ownership of property.
Persistently low turnover (avg 17%) and high pendency (avg 88%) are due to systemic stress, attributable to large volumes of non-performing asset litigation and infrastructural constraints, adjournments, dual jurisdiction, limited powers, lack of cooperation from borrowers, high appeal costs and lack of technology implementation.
