Umpteen company law and insolvency disputes still travel to the Supreme Court from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Supreme Court Justice Pankaj Mithal said on Monday while questioning whether tribunalisation has actually reduced the burden on constitutional courts.

Justice Mithal was speaking at an event organised by the NCLT and NCLAT Bar Association to commemorate 10 years of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and NCLAT.

Before the establishment of the NCLT and NCLAT, company law matters were decided by High Courts and would eventually reach the Supreme Court in appeal. Today, many of those disputes are adjudicated by the NCLT and then the NCLAT, but still end up before the Supreme Court, Justice Mithal said.

“Earlier, these matters came from the High Courts. Today, they come from NCLAT. The intermediate forum has changed. The ultimate destination often remains the same,” he observed.

The Supreme Court judge made it clear that this was not a criticism of the tribunals, but a structural observation about the working of the tribunal system.

The event at which Justice Mithal was speaking was held at the Constitution Club of India, New Delhi. It was attended by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, former Chief Justice of India Justice BR Gavai, NCLAT Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan, former Supreme Court Justice Rajesh Bindal and NCLT President Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal.

“One of the stated objectives behind tribunalisation was reduction in burden of constitutional courts and faster resolution of specialised disputes. Yet, in practice, the Supreme Court continues to engage extensively with insolvency and company law litigation arising from these forums,” he said.

This raises an important institutional question, he said.

“Has the system genuinely reduced litigation burdens and improved finality? Or has it merely altered the route through which litigation travels?”

Justice Mithal said that while the NCLT and NCLAT have played a central role in shaping India’s insolvency and company law jurisprudence, the completion of 10 years must be treated not merely as an occasion for celebration but also for honest introspection.

He said the tribunals have dealt with complex questions involving financial creditors, operational creditors, homebuyers, resolution applicants and statutory authorities. They have also helped alter the approach towards corporate default and financial discipline in India.

However, he flagged several structural challenges that continue to affect the functioning of the tribunals.

Pendency continues to pose a serious challenge with more than 18,000 cases waiting to be disposed of across several benches, he flagged.

He also pointed to chronic vacancies, uneven infrastructure and lack of specialised expertise in crucial areas like competition law and insolvency.

“A tribunal established to ensure commercial adjudication cannot consistently function with inadequate capacity while still being expected to deliver time-bound outcomes,” Justice Mithal said.

He further flagged what he described as a stark operational reality: more than 80 per cent of the workforce of both NCLT and NCLAT is contractual.

This heavy reliance on contractual staff disrupts continuity in basic operational and administrative functions and creates repeated cycles of recruitment and induction, he said.

Justice Mithal also said that asset recovery in insolvency cases is often constrained because distressed assets are valued on immediate liquidation potential rather than long-term enterprise value.

Former CJI Gavai said the NCLT and NCLAT have transformed the landscape of corporate dispute resolution in India. He said the institutional role and specialised expertise of the tribunals must be respected if the larger objectives of the insolvency framework are to be realised.

Former Supreme Court Justice Rajesh Bindal said the IBC had helped shift the focus from liquidation to revival.

He noted that in 2018, liquidation accounted for around 70 percent of cases and resolution for 30 percent. However, by 2024, the position had reversed to 45 percent liquidation and 55 percent resolution.

NCLAT Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan said the establishment of the tribunals was a watershed moment in India’s corporate legal history, but added that maintaining the sanctity of timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code remains one of the most pressing challenges.

Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said the NCLT and NCLAT have helped move India’s insolvency philosophy from liquidation to resolution.

He said the tribunals have contributed to improving legal certainty in India’s commercial environment and will play an important role in the goal of making India a developed country by 2047.

NCLT President Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal said the tribunals had played a foundational role in the development of insolvency jurisprudence in India.

He said that in the formative years of the IBC, several concepts that now appear settled had no established judicial foundation.

Justice Grewal acknowledged criticism over delays, but said adjudication cannot become a mechanical exercise driven only by timelines.

Senior Advocate and President of the NCLT and NCLAT Bar Association Virender Ganda and Secretary Rakesh Kumar also spoke at the event.