CII’s Proposed Central Oversight Mechanism Needs To Be Implemented

The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has recommended that the government establish a centralised oversight mechanism for the country’s tribunals. The proposal aims to address longstanding issues of fragmentation, inefficiency, and lack of accountability within the country’s quasi-judicial framework.

In order to make the mechanism effective, the industry body has recommended an amendment of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, so as to lend a robust statutory foundation to the panel.

The fact is that the country’s tribunal system, despite its importance vis-à-vis administrative justice and dispute resolution, remains highly disjointed. There is no unified institutional framework to monitor performance, infrastructure development, digital integration, or human resource management. As a result, tribunals largely operate in isolation—lacking standardised procedures, modern case management tools, and consistent training or service conditions for members and staff.

This dysfunction has had many repercussions. Case backlogs, delayed appointments, infrastructure shortfalls, and inadequate use of technology all contribute to poor performance across the board. These challenges delay dispute resolutions and impose a high economic and legal cost on businesses and individuals alike.

One of the starkest examples of dysfunction is the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which is currently functioning with only six judicial and five expert members, far short of the minimum sanctioned strength of ten in each category.

Then there is the issue of pendency which not only undermines the credibility and efficiency of the tribunal system but also discourages investment and business confidence. Capital often remains locked in litigation for years, while unresolved disputes perpetuate policy uncertainty. The Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) are even more overburdened, with more than 2.15 lakh cases pending in 2024. In total, over 2.8 lakh cases involving the Central government remain unresolved across all tribunals as of March 2025.

The physical and digital infrastructure of tribunals is another major area of concern. Many tribunals function out of temporary premises, with cramped courtrooms, outdated facilities, and insufficient IT systems. While virtual hearings were encouraged during the pandemic, their implementation remains inconsistent. E-filing systems, digital records, and integrated case management platforms are either missing or are poorly implemented, often due to unequal budgetary allocations.

Another issue lies in grievance redressal. Most tribunals lack dedicated, independent mechanisms and instead rely on internal processes under their parent ministries or the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS). These systems lack the specificity, speed, and transparency required to resolve tribunal-related complaints efficiently.

Compounding these issues is the lack of a central authority to coordinate, evaluate, and oversee the tribunal system. With management responsibilities scattered across different ministries, there is no single body to drive systemic reforms, enforce standards, or ensure accountability. There is also no equivalent to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) for tribunals. This lack of consolidated data hampers transparency, trend analysis, benchmarking, and evidence-based policymaking.

The CII has done well with its detailed vision for the proposed central oversight authority.

Its key functions would include:

Performance monitoring: Regular assessments using indicators such as pendency, average case disposal time, clearance rates, and member vacancy duration. Centralised data management: Publishing real-time data on case filing, disposals, adjournments, and delays to enable public scrutiny and policy reform.

Inter-ministerial coordination: Standardising tribunal frameworks to reduce administrative fragmentation and bring coherence to their functioning.

Support for appointments: Maintaining real-time vacancy dashboards, tracking pending recommendations, and aiding in due diligence to speed up member appointments.

Independent grievance redress: Addressing grievances related to registry delays, infrastructure problems, and other systemic issues.

Capacity building and knowledge exchange:

Conducting training programmes and workshops to foster uniformity and professional development across tribunals.

Reform initiatives: Helping resolve longstanding structural disputes between tribunals and ministries that have stalled reform or created operational ambiguity.

These are sound, actionable proposals—but two cautionary notes must be kept in mind. First, creating a new institution is not a panacea. Remember Lokpal? During the Anna Hazare movement, we were told that Lokpal would redeem the nation, ending corruption and ensuring efficiency in governance—indeed it would be heaven on earth. Lokpal did come into being, but one needs to be gullible to believe that the institution has transformed India into a utopia.

The second point follows from the first: India Inc has to strive—providing regular feedback to the authorities, beseeching ministers and officials to do the right thing, apprising them of urgent matters, etc.—to make the mechanism successful. It is not enough to just make a policy recommendation and step back—not in India at any rate where politicians are reckless and bureaucrats often feckless.

Just as governance cannot be left entirely to the government, the centralised oversight mechanism too can’t be.

In a nutshell, India’s tribunal system is at the crossroads. The CII’s proposal offers a timely and comprehensive blueprint for reform. However, its success will depend not just on the government's action, but also on persistent, coordinated pressure from industry, civil society, and legal experts.