Supreme Court PIL Highlights Continuing Crisis as 11 Debt Recovery Tribunals Remain Without Presiding Officers
The functioning of India’s Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) system has once again come under judicial scrutiny, with the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled Nischay Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 740/2024) continuing to remain pending before the Supreme Court. The petition raises serious concerns over the prolonged vacancies in several DRTs, which are affecting the timely disposal of debt recovery and SARFAESI matters across the country.
When the matter was first heard on November 18, 2024, a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Sanjay Kumar recorded that 11 Debt Recovery Tribunals were functioning without Presiding Officers. The Court observed that these vacancies had resulted in delays, pendency and administrative complications, with several tribunals operating under the burden of additional charge arrangements. The Supreme Court accordingly issued notice to the Union Government and sought its response.
The PIL contends that nearly one-third of the country’s DRTs had become non-functional due to the absence of Presiding Officers, frustrating the very purpose for which these specialised tribunals were established. According to the petitioner, prolonged vacancies have significantly delayed adjudication of applications filed by banks, financial institutions and borrowers under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and the SARFAESI Act.
The petition further argues that delayed appointments undermine access to speedy justice, which has been recognised by the Supreme Court as an integral part of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It seeks directions to the Ministry of Finance to ensure timely appointments, place the selection process on record, and establish a mechanism to prevent recurring vacancies in the tribunal system.
As an interim measure, the petitioner also requested that jurisdiction of non-functional DRTs be effectively assigned to operational tribunals so that litigants are not left without a forum. The plea emphasizes that borrowers, banks and financial institutions continue to face uncertainty as matters remain pending for want of regular Presiding Officers.
The issue assumes particular significance because DRTs constitute the primary adjudicatory forum for disputes relating to recovery of bank dues and challenges to measures taken under the SARFAESI Act. Vacancies at the level of Presiding Officers inevitably increase pendency, delay recovery proceedings and prolong litigation involving both lenders and borrowers.
With W.P. (C) No. 740/2024 still pending, the Supreme Court’s eventual decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the administration of Debt Recovery Tribunals across India and may shape the framework for timely appointments to these specialised judicial forums.
