The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has said it plays only an administrative role in the appointment process for members of the National Company Law Tribunal, after the Supreme Court criticised the ministry over vacancies, poor infrastructure and inadequate support staff at the NCLT and its appellate tribunal.
In a statement, the ministry said the NCLT independently conducts the process for appointing and managing its officers and staff. This includes deputy registrars, court officers, stenographers, office assistants and multi-tasking staff, it said.
The ministry was responding a day after the Supreme Court questioned its role in the functioning of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The court was hearing a petition concerning dilapidated infrastructure, vacancies and a lack of support staff that have been hampering the work of the tribunals.
The NCLT and NCLAT handle matters involving corporate law and insolvency. Their functioning depends not only on the appointment of judicial and technical members, but also on the availability of courtrooms, administrative personnel and other operational support. The issues raised before the Supreme Court therefore extend beyond the composition of the benches to the basic administrative capacity needed to conduct hearings and process cases.
The ministry said that the appointment process currently covers 63 judicial and technical members of the NCLT. It maintained that its role in this process is administrative rather than an exercise of operational control over the tribunal.
According to the ministry, the government delegated responsibility to the NCLT in October 2019 to support its effective and independent functioning. The statement specifically referred to the tribunal’s responsibility for the appointment and management of its officers and staff, including personnel working directly in its administrative and courtroom operations.
The clarification follows strong observations by the Supreme Court on Thursday. The court criticised the ministry for what it described as having “completely hijacked” the NCLT and NCLAT while examining the condition of their infrastructure and staffing. The ministry’s response places the dispute around the division of responsibilities between the government and the tribunals.
The immediate issue before the court remains the condition of the tribunals and the vacancies affecting their work. The supplied report does not specify the number of vacancies among officers and staff, the locations of the affected facilities, or any implementation timetable for infrastructure improvements. It also does not indicate the next date or outcome of the proceedings.
The matter has put the administrative foundations of India’s corporate-law adjudication system under scrutiny. Further developments will depend on the Supreme Court’s proceedings and on how responsibility for appointments, staffing and infrastructure is carried out in practice.
