Tribunal infrastructure reform and High Court supervision over DRTs and DRATs affirmed under constitutional superintendence.

Adequate infrastructure, staffing, recruitment, training and computerisation of DRTs and DRATs were treated as necessary for effective tribunal administration, and the reform directions were upheld for expeditious implementation. Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was read as not excluding constitutional supervision, and Article 227 was held to preserve High Courts' superintendence over the administrative functioning of DRTs and DRATs within their territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal reform measures and the High Courts' supervisory role were both affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the directions regarding adequate infrastructure, accommodation, staffing, recruitment, and computerisation of DRTs and DRATs warranted interference; (ii) whether the High Courts supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the functioning of DRTs and DRATs in light of Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Issue (i): adequacy of infrastructure and administrative reform in DRTs and DRATs

Analysis: The record showed acute shortage of space, infrastructure, staff, and technological facilities in the debt recovery tribunal system. The Union of India accepted the need for phased measures concerning suitable premises, minimum space norms, establishment of additional tribunals where necessary, timely filling of vacancies, appropriate recruitment of Recovery Officers, training, and computerisation through the e-DRT project. The Court accepted these measures as necessary for effective administration of justice in the tribunals.

Conclusion: The directions concerning infrastructure, staffing, recruitment, training, and computerisation were upheld and were to be implemented expeditiously, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over DRTs and DRATs

Analysis: Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 preserves the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 confers superintendence over courts and tribunals, including their administrative functioning. On that basis, the Court held that High Courts can keep a close watch on the functioning of DRTs and DRATs within their territorial jurisdictions.

Conclusion: High Courts do possess supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 over DRTs and DRATs, and the objection to such supervision failed, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with approval of the reform measures for the tribunal system and with affirmation of the High Courts' supervisory role over DRTs and DRATs.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 18 of the RDDBFI Act does not exclude the constitutional supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 over the functioning of DRTs and DRATs.

---