Supreme Court Allows DRAT Allahabad and Kolkata Chairpersons, Set To Demit Office Soon, To Continue Till Further Orders

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Chairpersons of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Allahabad and DRAT, Kolkata, to continue in office till further orders, despite their impending demitting of office.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi passed the interim directions while hearing an application arising out of its earlier judgment in the Madras Bar Association case.

“Till such proposal is put up before this Court, let the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Allahabad, be allowed to continue till further orders. Similarly, the Chairperson of the DRAT, Kolkata, who too is stated to be demitting office soon, be allowed to continue till further orders,” the court directed.

The court granted the Union of India four weeks' time to take a holistic view in respect to the functioning and conditions of service of various tribunals constituted either under Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India or under different statutes.

In the present case, the President of the DRAT Bar Association, Allahabad filed an application seeking extension of the Chairperson's tenure, set to expire on February 17, 2026.

Currently, Justice Rajesh Dayal Khare is serving as the Chairperson of DRAT Allahabad and Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava is serving as the Chairperson of DRAT Kolkata.

Background

The application arises from the Supreme Court's November 19, 2025 judgment in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India.

In that judgment, the court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, but read down and invalidated certain provisions relating to tenure and service conditions.

While examining the validity of the Act, the court considered the statutory framework governing tribunals under Part XIV-A of the Constitution and various central laws.

In doing so, it referred to earlier decisions including S.P. Sampath Kumar, L. Chandra Kumar, and subsequent rulings in the Madras Bar Association cases.

The court had also traced the legislative developments preceding the 2021 Act.

Earlier, Parliament had enacted the Finance Act, 2017 to regulate appointments and service conditions of tribunal members. The 2017 Rules framed under that Act were struck down in Rojer Mathew. Portions of the 2020 Rules were later invalidated.

Against this backdrop, Parliament enacted the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, prescribing a four-year tenure for Chairpersons and Members. It also empowered the Central Government to frame rules on their qualifications and service conditions.

While upholding Parliament's competence to enact the law, the court reiterated that the framework governing tribunals must comply with constitutional principles, including judicial independence and separation of powers.

Click Here To Read/Download Supreme Court Judgment