The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), an ambitious project of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) under the leadership of the Hon’ble Prime Minister, is one of the most important forums for the adjudication of disputes under the Companies Act, 2013, and resolution of corporate debt issues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. During its existence for almost 9 years, this forum has exhibited excellent performance.
It has offered an exclusive forum for adjudicating company disputes, under various provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, within its own limitations of availability of time, from various benches. It has disposed off over 22,000 cases in the past 8 years, under the Companies Act, 2013, and over 45,600 cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
This wonderful performance is achieved by the NCLT with the utmost dedication of its Hon’ble members and the cooperation of the members of the NCLT Bar Association. However, this magnificent institution has been neglected, in its treatment for fair share of members, staff and respectable infrastructure, commensurate to its status, equivalent to the Hon’ble High Court, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the leading judgements, namely Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2010) 11 SCC 1 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2015) 8 SCC 583. This article, therefore, highlights the critical issues that continue to hamper the effective functioning of the NCLT, New Delhi, and its other Benches in the capital cities of many States in India.
The NCLT, established on June 1, 2016, exercises exclusive jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2013, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Since its inception, it has become a cornerstone of India’s corporate and insolvency jurisprudence by facilitating the resolution of debt issues, in favour of lenders, exceeding ?19.02 lakh crore, creating history in the corporate jurisprudence. It is extremely sad to note that despite its stellar performance and pivotal role, the NCLT continues to operate in conditions that are inadequate and not commensurate with its status as a leading forum for adjudication of the most important corporate disputes.
Major Operational and Structural Challenges
The first issue that may be highlighted relates to inadequate infrastructure and space constraints in New Delhi. The Principal Bench in New Delhi, housed in the CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, is functioning in an old building without sufficient courtrooms. Court VI has no designated space, forcing Benches V and VI to work on half-day sittings, thereby reducing judicial productivity. During the current monsoon, two courtrooms on the 8th Floor have to shut down on account of water seepage and in-hospital conditions, leading to sharing of two courtrooms on the 7th Floor only half a day each, Bench.
Existing courtrooms are cramped, with no designated areas for lawyers or litigants, no proper waiting halls or consultation rooms, and insufficient record management facilities. Even basic amenities such as adequate seating and washrooms are lacking. The NCLTBar Association had earlier sought allotment of Block-3, CGO Complex, New Delhi, for its exclusive use, and the Central Public Works Department commenced renovation in January 2025. However, work was abruptly halted in April 2025 and has not resumed despite repeated requests by the NCLT itself in June and July.
The NCLT even asked the MCA to depute senior officials, including the Director (Infrastructure) and the Under Secretary (Infrastructure), for an on-site inspection to break the deadlock, but even that request remains unanswered. The NCLT Bar Association has urged that Block-3 be allotted in its entirety to the NCLT, that renovation works be resumed immediately with clear timelines, and that senior MCA officers be held accountable through progress reporting. It is only for this reason that the Nodal Ministry, to coordinate the affairs of NCLT, should be the Ministry of Law and Justice, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Madras Bar Association case, rather than the present MCA. For the reasons best known, the Nodal Ministry has not changed for many years.
In this regard, it may be mentioned that the NCLT Bar Association also raised the issue of non-functioning lifts, describing them as a grave safety concern. Frequent breakdowns pose risks to lawyers, litigants, staff, and members of the Bench, particularly senior citizens and differently-abled individuals. The NCLT Bar Association called for an urgent safety audit, replacement of outdated lifts, and the introduction of proper maintenance contracts to ensure functionality. It also proposed that until permanent solutions are in place, trained support staff and medical assistance be stationed on every floor to aid those unable to use stairways.
The situation of NCLT, locations in other capital cities, like Kolkata, Hyderabad, and Chandigarh, to name few is a serious issue as, NCLT is accommodated in a building known as ‘Corporate Bhawan’ and shared with officers of MCA, giving an impression that NCLT is a part/department of MCA, which certainly is not the intention of the parliament in establishing the High Powered Tribunal. It is to be independent of the Ministry and its “Corporate Bhawan.” In its new ‘Avatar’, NCLT must be seen to act as an independent, judicial forum. Another concern, particularly in the CGO Complex at New Delhi, is the restrictive security and entry protocols in place at the NCLT. Advocates are required to obtain daily physical entry passes, causing delays in reaching courtrooms.
The Delhi High Court in Ateendra Saumya Singh v. Union of India had already recommended the introduction of biometric access systems such as smart cards or fingerprint recognition. However, despite judicial directions, no effective implementation has taken place. In terms of the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Bar Association proposed that permanent ID cards be issued to advocates for seamless entry, while litigants and non-advocate visitors should be facilitated through a QR code or online pre-registration system. These measures would reduce congestion, speed up access, and ensure security without undermining the constitutional guarantee of unhindered access to justice.
One of the most critical issues, which strikes at the independence of the NCLT, is the appointment of members, on a contractual basis, for a period of 5 years only. Whereas Section 413 of the Companies Act 2013 contemplates a continuous re-appointment tenure for a member who is not liable to retire by compulsion of age, but in practice, there is hardly any case where a member is re-appointed for a second term or more, even when eligible for such re-appointment. This aspect strikes at the root of the independence of the judiciary, as nowhere in the world is a judge appointed on a contractual basis. The provision of law, therefore, in practice has become a paradise for retired bureaucrats. Such persons have no domain knowledge, definitely lack subject knowledge, and the judicial propriety to discharge their functions as members of a judicial forum.
On the digital front, there is an urgent need to upgrade the NCLT’s technology systems. The proposal for NCLT e-Court 2.0, submitted to the MCA in October 2024, remains pending despite multiple reminders. In the absence of these reforms, the current e-filing and Document Management System continues to suffer recurring technical glitches, causing significant delays in filing and accessing records. Hence, swift approval and implementation of NCLT 2.0, aligning it with the National Court Management System for interoperability, and upgrading the e-filing portal through a reputed technology partner. It further recommended establishing a 24x7 technical helpdesk and allowing manual filings in emergency situations when portals fail.
Linked to this is the non-functionality of the BharatKosh payment gateway, which remains the only mode available for statutory fee deposits. Its frequent failures result in adjournments and rejection of filings, often through no fault of the litigants or their counsel.
In this regard, it is stated that the NCLT Bar Association has called for the introduction of alternative payment systems in addition to BharatKosh, such as UPI, NEFT/RTGS, debit/credit cards, as well as a contingency manual payment facility, to ensure flexibility and avoid dependence on a single portal. It further suggested an NCLT filing wallet system allowing pre-deposits to avoid transaction failures, and contingency manual payment facilities to ensure filings are not rejected for technical reasons.
In view of the utmost importance of NCLT, New Delhi, there is a long-pending demand for suitable premises. The NCLT Bar Association recalled its earlier writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court in 2018, which sought adequate space for the NCLT, relocation to more suitable premises, and resolution of entry and parking issues.
While the NCLAT was subsequently relocated to the MTNL Building, no permanent solution has been found for the NCLT. The NCLT Bar Association emphasised the urgent need for a dedicated judicial complex housing both the NCLT and NCLAT, with space for expansion in line with the increasing caseload. Pending such a complex, it urged that the existing premises be upgraded immediately with additional courtrooms, consultation areas, record-keeping facilities, and parking.
It would not be amiss to point outthe chronic shortage of Members in the NCLT. The sanctioned strength has remained fixed at 63 Members since inception, despite the
subsequent expansion of jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Even this sanctioned strength has never been fully achieved; as a result, several Benches are operating with fewer Members due to prolonged vacancies. Therefore, there should be a permanent mechanism to ensure timely appointments and succession planning so that no Bench remains non-functional even temporarily. Whereas, the fair estimation for all Members’ number may be 160, but for effective operations, the strength must be at least 100 in numbers.
Finally, to give secretarial support to members, the absence of permanent staff in the NCLT cannot be ignored, despite the Supreme Court’s directions in 2015 to sanction 246 permanent posts comparable with the supporting staff of the High Court in India for the smooth functioning of the NCLT and NCLAT. To date, none of these posts have been operationalised, and crucial roles such as Court Masters and Bench Officers continue to be filled on a contractual basis. This has led to inefficiency, lack of continuity, and weakened judicial processes. The authorities will do well to take immediate steps for operationalisation of the sanctioned posts, permanent recruitment with transparent rules, induction and training programmes for staff, and competitive service conditions to ensure continuity and efficiency in judicial functioning.
Broader Impact on Economy and Justice Delivery
The challenges confronting the NCLT go far beyond administrative inconvenience; they carry significant economic and systemic consequences. Delays in adjudicating insolvency proceedings undermine the time-bound framework envisioned under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where swift resolution is critical to preserving enterprise value.
Every adjournment caused by infrastructural gaps, staff shortages, or digital breakdowns directly impacts creditors’ recoveries and reduces confidence in India’s insolvency regime. This not only burdens businesses but also deters foreign investors, who see efficient dispute resolution as a prerequisite for committing capital in India. Similarly, delays in company matters, like oppression and mismanagement complaints, mergers, amalgamations and other schemes of compromise and arrangements, erode the confidence of the interested public in the companies and distract foreign financial and technical collaborators and investors.
The NCLT’s working constraints also strain the broader justice delivery system. When Benches remain understaffed or operate with reduced sittings, litigants are forced into prolonged legal uncertainty, undermining the constitutional guarantee of timely and equitable justice.
As other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, such as High Courts and consumer forums, have successfully adopted digital reforms and structural upgrades, demonstrating that systemic transformation is possible with the right commitment and resources and the same is required in NCLT as well. Strengthening the NCLT is thus not a matter of isolated reform but a critical step toward improving India’s global ranking in ease of doing business, ensuring corporate governance standards, and safeguarding the integrity of its financial system.
In light of these systemic implications, the above-noted requirements cannot be viewed as a routine demand for facilities. These are required to safeguard the credibility of India’s corporate justice system. Unless comprehensive reforms are implemented with urgency, litigants will continue to face crippling delays, practitioners will remain hamstrung by inefficiencies, and India’s standing as an investment-friendly jurisdiction will suffer.
The way forward must be anchored in clear timelines, defined accountability, and transparent monitoring mechanisms. Infrastructure upgrades, digital reforms, staffing solutions, and financial flexibility are not optional improvements but essential pillars for the NCLT’s survival and effectiveness. Timely action can transform the NCLT from a struggling institution into a global benchmark for corporate dispute resolution, and to avoid the risks of eroding both investor confidence and faith in the rule of law.
The writers are Dr UK Chaudhary, Senior Advocate & President, National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association and Manisha Chaudhary, Advocate
