The Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 and What Changed (2026)
What the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 changed: which appellate tribunals were abolished, where their work moved, the new rules on members, and how the Supreme Court later struck down key parts. Last verified October 2026.
Explainer · Tribunals · Reform
The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 did two big things: it abolished several appellate tribunals and sent their work to the High Courts and other courts, and it set uniform rules for how tribunal members are chosen and how long they serve. The most talked-about abolition was the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The Act then ran into the courts: in November 2025 the Supreme Court struck down its provisions on tenure, age and selection for undermining judicial independence. This explainer sets out what changed, where the work moved, and what the courts have said. Last verified October 2026.
- What: the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 abolished several appellate tribunals and set uniform rules for tribunal members.
- Abolished: the IPAB, the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, the Airports Appellate Tribunal, and others; work moved to the High Courts and commercial courts.
- Members: a search-cum-selection committee, a four-year term, and a minimum age of fifty, among other conditions.
- Supreme Court: in November 2025 it struck down the tenure, age and selection provisions and directed a National Tribunals Commission; the abolitions stand.
01The problem the Act tried to solve
India had built up a large number of tribunals over decades, each with its own rules on who could be a member and for how long. The government argued that some appellate tribunals handled very few cases, added a layer without adding much value, and could be merged into the courts.
The reform had two aims: remove a set of appellate tribunals and move their work to the High Courts or commercial courts, and bring the remaining tribunals under one common framework for appointments, tenure and service conditions. The second aim is where the Act repeatedly clashed with the Supreme Court.
02From ordinance to Act
The changes first came through the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, promulgated in April 2021, after an earlier bill lapsed. The ordinance was then replaced by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, enacted on 13 August 2021.
This was not the first attempt. Earlier rules on tribunal members had already been tested in the Madras Bar Association line of cases, where the Supreme Court repeatedly insisted on safeguards for the independence of tribunals. The 2021 Act was passed against that background, which is why its service-condition provisions drew immediate challenge.
03Which tribunals were abolished
The Act abolished a set of appellate tribunals and transferred their functions. The bodies named in the reform include:
- the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which heard trademark, patent, GI and copyright appeals;
- the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, which heard appeals against the Central Board of Film Certification;
- the Airports Appellate Tribunal;
- the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal;
- certain appellate authorities under the Customs and other Acts.
To do this, the Act amended several laws, including the Cinematograph Act, the Copyright Act, the Customs Act, the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Geographical Indications of Goods Act, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, the Airports Authority of India Act, and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act.
IPAB is the headline
The abolition of the IPAB had the widest effect, because it changed where every trademark, patent, GI and copyright appeal in the country is heard. That shift is covered in where IP appeals go after the IPAB.
04Where the work moved
The stated aim was to send the abolished tribunals work directly to the commercial court or the High Court, depending on the subject matter. In practice, appeals that used to go to the IPAB now go to the High Courts, film certification appeals go to the High Court, and so on.
Pending matters were transferred to the courts that took over the jurisdiction, with provisions letting the court either continue from the stage reached or take the matter up afresh. The concern raised at the time was that the High Courts were already overburdened, and would now carry the extra load.
05New rules for members
For the tribunals that remained, the Act set a common framework for members: a search-cum-selection committee to recommend appointments, a four-year term, and a minimum age of fifty for appointment, among other conditions.
These were the provisions that caused the trouble. The Supreme Court had, in earlier rulings, laid down what judicial independence requires for tribunals, including longer tenures and a selection process that keeps the executive at arms length. The 2021 Act provisions cut against several of those directions.
06What the Supreme Court held
In November 2025 a Division Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the Act key provisions on the tenure, the age of appointment, the composition of the search-cum-selection committee, and the conditions of service of tribunal members, holding that they violated the constitutional guarantee of judicial independence. The Court also directed the Union to set up a National Tribunals Commission within four months.
Importantly, the abolition of the tribunals and the transfer of their functions to the High Courts were not the subject of that ruling, so the structural changes stand. For the question of where IP appeals now go, see where IP appeals go after the IPAB, and for the routes from surviving tribunals to the top court, see appeals from tribunals to the Supreme Court.
07Where Claw fits
Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.
After the 2021 reform, work that once sat in abolished tribunals such as the IPAB now runs in the High Courts, so following a matter often means following it into a new forum. Claw is suited to that shift. It keeps cases, orders and hearings under watch across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, so a transferred matter can be picked up in its new court, and its judgment search, reaching the Supreme Court from 1950 and the High Courts from 1990, lets you read how the courts have treated the reform and the November 2025 ruling across more than 30 crore decisions, with the result in under five seconds. For the wider body of law, see case search across Indian courts.
Open a free Claw account to follow your matter by party or advocate name. Claw does not use customer case documents to train its AI models, and it tracks and researches rather than giving legal advice.
08Sources and further reading
- India Code (Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021): indiacode.nic.in
- PRS Legislative Research (Act overview): prsindia.org
- Supreme Court of India (2025 ruling): main.sci.gov.in
- Claw: clawlaw.in
This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The law and the court position change, so check the current text and the latest judgments before you act.
09Frequently asked questions
What did the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 do?
It abolished several appellate tribunals and transferred their work to the High Courts and commercial courts, and it set uniform rules for the appointment, tenure and service conditions of members of the tribunals that remained.
Which tribunals were abolished?
The bodies include the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, the Airports Appellate Tribunal, and the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal, among others. The abolition of the IPAB had the widest effect.
Where did the abolished tribunals work go?
Mainly to the High Courts, and to commercial courts for some matters, depending on the subject. Pending cases were transferred to the court that took over the jurisdiction.
Did the Supreme Court strike down the Act?
It struck down key provisions. In November 2025 the Supreme Court held that the provisions on tenure, age of appointment, the selection committee, and service conditions violated judicial independence, and it directed a National Tribunals Commission. The abolitions and transfers were not struck down.
Why did the Act keep clashing with the courts?
Because the Supreme Court had already laid down, in the Madras Bar Association cases, what judicial independence requires for tribunals, including longer tenures and a selection process free of executive dominance. The 2021 provisions cut against those directions.
Can I track a transferred matter in Claw?
Yes. Claw follows a transferred matter in its new court across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, and lets you search more than 30 crore judgments, with each result back in under five seconds. It tracks and researches the matter but does not give legal advice.