Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court at Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed an appeal challenging the relocation of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, to Corporate Bhawan, New Town. The Court held that decisions concerning the allocation of infrastructure and tribunal premises fall within the exclusive domain of the executive authorities. It directed that such matters are governed by administrative discretion and cannot be subjected to judicial intervention in the absence of demonstrable illegality or arbitrariness. The Court also observed that the appeal lacked a statutory basis for demanding specific infrastructural arrangements and upheld the principle of judicial restraint in matters of administrative policy.

The dispute arose from the alleged denial of basic facilities to members of the NCLT Advocates Bar Association at the Kolkata Bench. The appellant association contended that despite repeated representations to the concerned authorities, including the Union of India and related stakeholders, fundamental infrastructural support such as chambers, seating arrangements, washrooms, and other essential facilities were persistently denied.

Also Read: Supreme Court: “Unregistered Document May Be Received as Evidence of a Contract” in Specific Performance Suit

The appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Learned Single Judge, who, by judgment dated 25th March 2025, allowed the writ petition and issued directions to the respondents. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellants filed the present appeal arguing that the directions of the Learned Single Judge interfered with administrative and policy matters reserved for the executive.

The appellants further contended that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs' proposal to relocate the NCLT Kolkata Bench to the newly constructed Corporate Bhawan was arbitrary and devoid of transparency. They argued that housing the Tribunal alongside various executive offices under the Ministry, including the Regional Director, Registrar of Companies, Official Liquidator, and Serious Fraud Investigation Office, violated the doctrine of separation of powers and undermined judicial independence as enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution of India.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1, which held that tribunals must function independently, free from executive control or influence. The appellants also cited the Constitutional Bench decision in Swiss Ribbons Private Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17, stating that "the administrative support for all tribunals should be from the Ministry of Law and Justice," and not from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

The appellants contended that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate these binding precedents and constitutional mandates. They argued that the relocation would erode judicial autonomy and reduce the Tribunal to a mere extension of the parent Ministry.

In response, the respondents submitted that the appellants neither demonstrated any violation of their fundamental rights nor established any legal injury to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It was argued that the petition was based solely on inconvenience resulting from the relocation and did not constitute a legal ground for intervention.

The respondents further stated that the selection of premises and logistical decisions concerning tribunals fall within the exclusive policy-making domain of the executive. Citing Allahabad University v. Gitanjali Tewari (2024 SCC Online SC 3776), it was argued that no writ of mandamus can be issued to dictate the location of a tribunal.

Additionally, the respondents contended that the appellants' position was contradictory. While seeking to retain the Tribunal under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs by opposing its relocation, they simultaneously argued that tribunals should function under the Ministry of Law and Justice, citing Swiss Ribbons (supra).

The Court recorded that "matters relating to the allocation of infrastructure, including the location of judicial forums such as the NCLT, fall squarely within the domain of administrative discretion and policy formulation by the appropriate executive authorities."

It further observed that "the judiciary, while vested with the power of judicial review, must exercise restraint in interfering with such decisions in the absence of demonstrable illegality, arbitrariness or violation of constitutional or statutory rights."

The Bench cited the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association (supra): "Impartiality, independence, fairness and reasonableness in decision making are the hallmarks of the judiciary. If 'Impartiality' is the soul of the judiciary, 'Independence' is the lifeblood of the judiciary."

The Court further recorded: "Judicial independence includes, inter alia, the discipline to refrain from intruding into spheres explicitly reserved for the executive and legislature."

Addressing the appellants' arguments on infrastructural deficiencies and the distance of the new premises from the Calcutta High Court, the Court stated: "While the concerns of the legal fraternity are not insignificant, both the NCLTs are developed and maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This Court is equally conscious of the fact that the new premises are equipped with improved facilities, better infrastructure and are in many ways more suited to meet the evolving demands of modern judicial administration."

The Court clarified that the relevant question was not whether the relocation was beneficial or detrimental but whether it was open to judicial review. The Court unequivocally answered in the negative, observing that "Courts are not equipped, nor are they mandated, to undertake such evaluations or substitute their own judgments in place of that of the competent authorities."

The Bench also recorded that the appellant association, being a voluntary body, lacked a statutory right to demand specific infrastructural arrangements. The Court stated that while representations to appropriate authorities are permissible, "this Court cannot issue directions that would, in effect, amount to micro-managing policy decisions."

Concluding its observations, the Court held that the relocation decision was taken in the interest of efficiency and functionality, and no material on record indicated any mala fides or arbitrariness in the decision-making process.

Also Read: Petitioner Spent 1457 Days In Illegal Detention | Gauhati High Court Directs Urgent Repatriation Of Nigerian Citizen | Warns Authorities Of Unconditional Release At Their Risk And Cost

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that " This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to exercise judicial restraint and abstains from issuing any directive that would interfere with the executive’s domain”. It stated: "For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. All pending applications connected with this appeal also stand disposed of."

However, the Court left open the possibility for future administrative reconsideration, directing that: "This dismissal shall not preclude the concerned authorities from taking appropriate steps in future to address the issues raised by the appellant. Specifically, the Ministry of Law and Justice is directed to make efforts, as and when feasible, to consider shifting the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, from Corporate Bhawan, New Town to a more suitable and independent premises, in a manner that upholds the autonomy and efficient functioning of the Tribunal."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Mr. Joy Saha, Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Mr. Sidhartha Sharma, Mr. Patit Paban Bishwal, Ms. Namrrataa Basu, Ms. Shreya Chowdhury, Mr. Barnik Ghosh, Mr. Kanishk Keiriwal, Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Ms. Kirann Sharma, Ms. Madhu Jana, Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Mr. Udit Agarwal, Ms. Tanvi Luhariwala, Ms. Arundhati Barman Roy, Ms. Sohini Dey, Ms. Pallavi Gogoi, Mr. Avik Chowdhury, Mr. Arkadeb Sinha, Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Aman Kataruka, Mr. Amandeep Singh, Mr. Riyanshu Agarwal

For the Respondents: Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Mr. Avinash Kankani

Case Title: NCLT Advocates Bar Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: MAT 469 of 2025

Bench: Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

[Read/Download order]