The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) occupy a central position in India’s corporate and insolvency framework.

NCLT deals with matters ranging from corporate insolvency and restructuring to oppression and mismanagement, mergers, winding-up and several other proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

NCLAT, in turn, serves as the principal appellate forum for several orders passed by the NCLT.

The importance of these tribunals has been accompanied by a recurring concern: Can a tribunal effectively discharge its statutory responsibilities if it does not have sufficient members, infrastructure, staff and technological support?

Recent observations of the Supreme Court of India, including those made in September 2026, have brought this question into sharp focus.

On 21 September 2026, while hearing proceedings concerning appointments and infrastructure at the NCLT, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana described the NCLT and NCLAT as the government’s “lifeline”, noting the importance of the matters coming before these tribunals and questioning how they could function without basic amenities, staff and technological support.

This latest development needs to be viewed against a series of earlier Supreme Court observations concerning NCLT/NCLAT vacancies, infrastructure, timelines, independence and technological functioning.

1.Why NCLT and NCLAT have become critical institutions

The NCLT is not merely another specialised forum.

It has extensive jurisdiction under the Companies Act and functions as the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC.

Its functions include corporate insolvency resolution, personal guarantor insolvency, oppression and mismanagement proceedings, mergers and amalgamations, winding-up and several other corporate matters.

The IBC, in particular, is built around the principle of time-bound resolution.

A delay at the adjudicating level can have consequences beyond the litigants themselves.

Insolvency proceedings may involve:

• companies employing hundreds or thousands of persons;
• substantial bank exposure;
• public-sector financial institutions;
• homebuyers;
• operational creditors;
• employees and workmen;
• resolution applicants;
• government dues; and
• significant underlying assets.

Consequently, the effective functioning of the adjudicating and appellate institutions is an important part of the insolvency framework.

2.Supreme Court’s latest observation: “How will the institution function?”

The issue came before the Supreme Court again on 21 September 2026.

The Court was considering concerns raised by the NCLT Principal Bench Bar Association regarding:

• shortage of members;
• half-day sittings;
• inadequate physical infrastructure;
• inadequate technological infrastructure; and
• shortage of permanent support staff.

The Bar Association reportedly informed the Court that 18 NCLT benches were holding only half-day sittings under the roster effective from August 24 because of vacancies and retirement of members. It also pointed to the prospect of further vacancies arising through retirements.

The Supreme Court questioned how an institution dealing with disputes involving thousands of crores of rupees could function without basic facilities.

The Court specifically referred to the need for:

• buildings;
• staff;
• judgment writers; and
• adequate technological support.

The Court has directed the NCLT Principal Bench Bar Association to collect information concerning infrastructure at regional NCLT benches and place the data before the Court.

The Union Government has also been directed to file a status report regarding the basic amenities available at the Principal and regional benches and to identify the amenities urgently required in consultation with the President of the NCLT.

The matter is to be considered further after two weeks.

3.This is not the first time the Supreme Court has raised the issue

The September 2026 proceedings are significant, but they are not an isolated judicial observation.

The Supreme Court has previously expressed serious concerns about the functioning of NCLT and NCLAT.

One particularly important judgment was delivered on 7 November 2024 in State Bank of India v. Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch.

While dealing with an insolvency dispute, the Supreme Court devoted substantial attention to structural problems affecting the NCLT and NCLAT.

The Court identified:

• shortage of members;
• inadequate infrastructure;
• operational inefficiencies;
• reduced sitting hours;
• shared courtrooms or halls; and
• consequent difficulties in complying with the timelines contemplated under the IBC.

The Court observed that vacancies could result in tribunals sitting only for a few days a week or a few hours a day. It also noted that even where there were no vacancies, inadequate infrastructure could require benches to share courtrooms or halls on a rotational basis.

The connection between tribunal capacity and the objectives of the IBC was therefore expressly recognised.

4.The IBC’s time-bound framework requires a functioning adjudicatory system

The IBC contains strict timelines because insolvency is highly sensitive to delay.

A company’s assets may lose value during prolonged proceedings.

The financial position of the corporate debtor may deteriorate.

Potential resolution applicants may lose interest.

Creditors may have to wait longer for recovery or resolution.

The Supreme Court’s 2024 observations therefore connected member shortages and inadequate infrastructure with the larger objectives of insolvency reform.

The Court observed that vacancies and infrastructure deficiencies can adversely affect the resolution process and called for prioritisation of appointments and infrastructure requirements.

This leads to an important legal proposition:

Time-bound insolvency law requires not merely statutory deadlines, but institutions capable of meeting those deadlines.

5.The Supreme Court has also stressed the quality and independence of tribunal appointments

The problem is not limited to the number of members.

The Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment also emphasised the importance of the quality and independence of appointments.

The Court stated that appointments to the NCLT and NCLAT should be made in a manner that avoids gaps between retirement and replacement.

It also emphasised the need for persons of high integrity and appropriate expertise.

The Court specifically stated that there should not be political appointments to these tribunals.

This reflects a broader constitutional principle concerning tribunals: specialisation cannot come at the expense of institutional independence.

6.Tribunal independence includes infrastructure

A particularly important aspect of the Supreme Court’s tribunal jurisprudence concerns the relationship between institutional independence and administrative dependence.

In a 2025 judgment concerning tribunal reforms, the Supreme Court referred to earlier constitutional concerns about tribunal independence.

The Court noted that dependence of tribunals upon the sponsoring or parent department for infrastructure or personnel can potentially undermine tribunal independence.

The judgment also referred to the broader concern that tribunals should function as judicial institutions rather than merely as bureaucratic boards.

This is an important conceptual point.

Independence is not confined to who appoints a member.

It also has an institutional dimension.

A tribunal requires:

• suitable courtrooms;
• administrative staff;
• registry personnel;
• technology;
• case-management systems;
• judgment-writing support;
• digital infrastructure; and
• financial and administrative arrangements sufficient to enable independent functioning.

7.The 2025 Mansi Brar judgment: vacancies and infrastructure

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma, decided on 12 September 2025, provides another important reference point.

The case concerned real-estate insolvency and the position of homebuyers under the IBC.

While dealing with the substantive issues, the Supreme Court issued directions concerning the functioning of NCLT and NCLAT.

Among other things, the Court directed that:

• vacancies in NCLT/NCLAT should be filled on a war footing;
• dedicated IBC benches with additional strength should be constituted;
• retired judges could be considered for ad hoc assistance until regular appointments were made; and
• the Union Government should report on measures taken to upgrade NCLT/NCLAT infrastructure nationwide.

The Court also highlighted the need for stronger technological and case-management infrastructure for IBC matters.

Thus, by 2025, the Supreme Court had already connected tribunal capacity, infrastructure and timely insolvency adjudication.

8.From physical infrastructure to digital infrastructure

Modern tribunal functioning is no longer dependent only upon buildings and courtrooms.

Digital infrastructure has become equally important.

This has become particularly clear in a September 2026 Supreme Court decision concerning an NCLAT e-filing problem.

In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Mamta Binani & Others, the Supreme Court considered a situation in which an appeal was filed beyond the statutory period after difficulties were encountered with the NCLAT’s e-filing system.

The Supreme Court held that a litigant should not be prejudiced by a technical failure attributable to the tribunal’s own electronic filing system.

The Court invoked the principle: actus curiae neminem gravabit — an act of the court should prejudice no one.

The appeal was restored to the NCLAT for reconsideration.

This judgment is significant because it shows that digital infrastructure is now part of access to justice.

A portal is not merely an administrative convenience when filing electronically is an essential part of initiating an appeal.

9.Can a litigant suffer because the tribunal’s technology fails?

The answer emerging from the September 2026 decision is that the consequences of a tribunal’s own technological failure cannot ordinarily be allowed to operate unfairly against a litigant who made a bona fide attempt to file.

The Supreme Court recognised that the statutory limitation provisions under the IBC remain important.

However, where a litigant has attempted to comply and the failure is attributable to the tribunal’s filing system, the principle that an act of the court should not prejudice a litigant may become relevant.

For advocates practising before NCLAT, this has a very practical dimension.

Where an e-filing problem occurs, practitioners should consider maintaining contemporaneous evidence of:

• attempted filing;
• screenshots;
• error messages;
• email communications;
• helpdesk complaints;
• payment attempts; and
• subsequent successful filing.

The judgment does not mean that limitation periods can generally be ignored. Rather, it illustrates the importance of establishing that the delay arose from a bona fide technical failure rather than from negligence.

10. The 2026 developments show a common theme

The recent developments can be viewed together.

2024 — Capacity

The Supreme Court highlighted member shortages and inadequate infrastructure and their effect on IBC timelines.

2025 — Strengthening the system

In Mansi Brar Fernandes, the Court issued directions concerning vacancies, additional benches, infrastructure and technological systems.

September 2026 — Physical and administrative infrastructure

The Supreme Court has now sought data concerning infrastructure across NCLT benches and directed the Union Government to identify urgently required amenities.

September 2026 — Digital infrastructure

In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Mamta Binani, the Court addressed the consequences of technical failure in NCLAT’s e-filing system.

Taken together, these developments point to a broader issue:

The effectiveness of tribunal justice depends upon the capacity of the institution to function—not merely upon the existence of statutory jurisdiction.

11. Why this matters particularly under the IBC

The IBC was designed around speed and value preservation.

The statutory architecture assumes that:

1. an application will be filed;
2. the adjudicating authority will hear it;
3. CIRP will proceed within prescribed timelines;
4. resolution applicants will participate;
5. creditors will take decisions;
6. the adjudicating authority will consider the resolution plan; and
7. appellate remedies will be available within the statutory framework.

Every stage depends upon a functioning institutional structure.

A shortage of members can reduce sitting days.

A shortage of courtrooms can reduce effective hearing capacity.

A shortage of registry staff can affect filing and processing.

A defective e-filing system can affect limitation-sensitive appeals.

Inadequate technological infrastructure can affect access to documents and hearings.

Therefore, institutional capacity is not separate from the IBC framework—it is part of the practical infrastructure through which the IBC operates.

12.NCLT’s role extends far beyond insolvency

Another reason infrastructure becomes important is the expanding jurisdiction of the NCLT.

The NCLT deals with matters under the Companies Act including, among others:

• oppression and mismanagement;
• class actions;
• reduction of share capital;
• rectification of the register of members;
• mergers and amalgamations;
• restoration of company names;
• winding-up; and
• corporate insolvency proceedings.

It also deals with insolvency proceedings involving personal guarantors in the circumstances provided under the IBC.

Thus, delays or capacity constraints at the NCLT can affect a wide range of corporate stakeholders.

13.The tribunal system needs a systemic approach

The concerns expressed by the Supreme Court also correspond with wider institutional discussions about India’s tribunal system.

A Parliamentary Standing Committee report submitted in August 2026 reviewed the functioning of several tribunals, including the NCLT, and identified member shortages among the issues affecting tribunal capacity.

This suggests that tribunal reform is not merely a question of appointing a few additional members.

A sustainable tribunal system requires attention to:

Human resources –Adequate judicial and technical members must be available.

Succession planning –Appointments should be planned sufficiently in advance to avoid gaps caused by retirement.

Infrastructure –Courtrooms, chambers, registry facilities and administrative space must be adequate.

Technology –E-filing, video conferencing and digital case-management systems must function reliably.

Registry capacity –A tribunal can only function effectively if filings, defects, notices and orders are processed efficiently.

Research and judgment-writing support –Complex corporate and insolvency matters require adequate institutional support.

Independence –The administrative arrangements should not compromise the independence expected of a judicial forum.

14. What does this mean for litigants and advocates?

For practitioners appearing before NCLT and NCLAT, these developments have practical consequences.

First: maintain evidence of filing attempts

Where e-filing is involved, advocates should preserve evidence of successful and unsuccessful filing attempts.

Second: do not assume that a portal problem automatically extends limitation

The Supreme Court’s Mamta Binani decision was based on the particular circumstances of technical failure and bona fide attempts.

Third: monitor defects and registry communications

Procedural compliance remains important despite institutional difficulties.

Fourth: distinguish delay caused by the litigant from delay caused by the institution

This distinction can become legally significant.

Fifth: keep track of bench constitution and listing

Where member vacancies affect sitting arrangements, practitioners need to monitor the roster and listing position carefully.

15.The larger constitutional question: access to justice

The discussion ultimately goes beyond NCLT and NCLAT.

A tribunal is established to provide specialised adjudication.

If the tribunal does not have the personnel, infrastructure or technology necessary to hear and decide cases, the formal existence of the forum does not by itself guarantee effective access to justice.

The Supreme Court’s recent observations therefore raise a broader institutional principle:

Justice requires not only jurisdiction, but also a functioning institution capable of exercising that jurisdiction effectively.

This is particularly important for specialised tribunals because their jurisdiction often concerns technically complex and economically significant disputes.

16. What should effective tribunal reform look like?

The recent Supreme Court observations suggest several areas that require continuing attention.

17. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s recent observations concerning NCLT and NCLAT reveal an important aspect of India’s insolvency and corporate justice system.

The effectiveness of the IBC and Companies Act framework depends not only on the quality of the legislation, but also on the institutional capacity of the forums entrusted with implementing it.

The Supreme Court’s concerns have emerged repeatedly:

• in 2024, regarding vacancies, infrastructure and the effect of reduced tribunal capacity on insolvency timelines;
• in 2025, through directions concerning NCLT/NCLAT vacancies, infrastructure and technological strengthening;
• in September 2026, through renewed scrutiny of physical infrastructure and staffing at NCLT benches; and
• in September 2026, through recognition that a litigant should not be prejudiced by an NCLAT e-filing failure attributable to the tribunal’s system.

The latest proceedings are therefore best understood not as an isolated complaint about buildings or staff. They form part of a continuing judicial conversation about how specialised tribunals can deliver timely, accessible, technologically capable and institutionally independent justice.

For the NCLT and NCLAT, this question is particularly important because the tribunals sit at the intersection of corporate governance, insolvency, banking, investment, employment and economic activity.

As the Supreme Court observed in September 2026, these institutions deal with matters involving thousands of crores of rupees. Their effective functioning is consequently a matter of importance not merely to individual litigants, but to the wider corporate and financial ecosystem.