03 July 2024 Administrative Law >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

In a recent judicial development in the matter of Gujarat Operational Creditors Association Versus National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi & Others, the Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition that sought significant reforms in the functioning of the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The petition, while raising multiple prayers, primarily focused on enhancing transparency and procedural robustness within these adjudicatory bodies.

The core issue highlighted in the petition was the challenge against Rule 45(6) of the NCLT Rules (2016), contending that it lacked clarity and contravened constitutional principles. Among the remedies sought were directives for live-streaming of proceedings, mandatory recording of hearings, provision of recordings and transcripts to concerned parties, and ensuring proper authentication of orders and judgments.

During the proceedings, Mr. Deepak Khosla, counsel for the Petitioner, underscored that these reforms were crucial not only for transparency but also for bolstering the decision-making process within the NCLT and NCLAT.

The High Court, in its deliberation, acknowledged the significance of the issues raised but opted to treat the writ petition more as a representation to be reviewed by the Hon’ble Chairperson of NCLAT. This decision was informed by the logistical complexities involved in implementing such directives across multiple NCLT benches nationwide. It was emphasized that considerations such as infrastructure requirements, deployment of trained personnel, technical capabilities, and even the location of servers would need careful examination before any sweeping directives could be effectively enforced.

Furthermore, the court exercised discretion in rejecting certain prayer clauses (vii) to (xiii) of the petition, which it deemed to exceed the primary scope of the petition’s core issues related to recording and transparency. These clauses included demands related to the manner of reserving, authoring, and dictating judgments.

In response to objections raised by respondents regarding jurisdictional and procedural matters, the court deferred detailed consideration to the Hon’ble Chairperson of NCLAT. This step was seen as prudent to allow for a comprehensive evaluation within the administrative framework of the tribunals.

Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the Petitioner granted the liberty to present it directly to the Hon’ble Chairperson, NCLAT, for further review and action. The court’s decision marked a pivotal step towards potential reforms aimed at enhancing transparency and efficiency in the adjudication processes of the NCLT and NCLAT.

As stakeholders await the outcome of these representations, the case stands as a testament to ongoing efforts towards judicial reform and accountability within India’s corporate law adjudication system.