Institutional autonomy must be respected by everyone in the country
In Short
The Supreme Court criticizes the Corporate Affairs Ministry over NCLT and NCLAT autonomy, highlighting massive staff vacancies, executive overreach, and contractual hiring.
Share :
Institutional autonomy must be respected by everyone in the country
The Supreme Court’s criticism of the government over its handling of the two important quasi-judicial financial adjudicatory bodies, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), could not have come at a more inconvenient time. As it is, the Narendra Modi regime is facing allegations of having undermined the Election Commission of India (ECI) with the assistance of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
And now a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana has said the two tribunals have “been completely hijacked by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.” Lashing out at the government, the CJI said, “The Ministry wants to have a complete whip over these tribunals. That is what is most unfortunate.”
The top court also smelt a rat in the implementation of the policy of ‘lateral entry.’ While such an entry can be good for enhancing efficiency, it should not become a tool to augment executive arbitrariness. Senior advocate Sanjiv Sen, appearing for NCLT Bar Association, pointed out that the roofs of certain floors in the building housing NCLT are collapsing.
Many posts of judicial and technical members are lying vacant, he said, adding that the most unfortunate part is that out of 320 regular posts in NCLT, an overwhelming 253 are vacant. The CJI didn’t mince words in slamming the government, “Contractual employment means backdoor entry. In Bombay, for instance, I know how these contractual employees ran away with original files, and FIRs had to be registered.
They do not care about the judicial members or technical members. Some technical members are still manipulating certain things.” He rightly said that recruitments should be done through the Union Public Service Commission or Staff Selection Commission. It is good to see that the higher judiciary is speaking out against the government’s efforts to manipulate institutions. Such interventions are particularly important as constitutional and statutory bodies are increasingly vulnerable to executive interference.
The independence of institutions is not a matter of administrative convenience; it is fundamental to the functioning of a constitutional democracy. The government of the day may have the authority to frame policies, appoint personnel, and provide administrative support, but none of these powers should translate into control over institutions that are constitutionally or statutorily expected to function independently. The distinction between administrative oversight and institutional capture must be respected.
What makes the apex court’s observations particularly significant is that they expose a pattern of executive overreach that goes beyond any one institution. Whether it is the Election Commission, investigative agencies, or quasi-judicial tribunals, the temptation to subordinate independent institutions to the political executive is inimical to the rule of law.
An institution need not be formally abolished or stripped of its statutory powers to be rendered ineffective; it can be weakened through deliberate vacancies, inadequate infrastructure, arbitrary appointments, and contractual arrangements that compromise its autonomy. This is precisely why the Court’s intervention matters. It is a reminder that institutional independence must be substantive, not merely an assurance written into statutes. However, judicial criticism alone cannot remedy the problem.
The government must demonstrate, through concrete action, that it respects institutional autonomy. Vacancies must be filled through transparent, merit-based procedures, infrastructure must be improved, and appointments must be insulated from arbitrary executive discretion. The executive should not treat institutions as its extensions.
