In a strongly worded and impactful decision, the Allahabad High Court expressed serious concern over the prolonged non-functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Prayagraj, highlighting the adverse consequences such institutional paralysis has had on litigants, especially financial institutions and borrowers alike. The bench, while hearing a plea connected to the functioning of the tribunal, remarked upon the alarming delay in appointments and operational gaps that have rendered the DRT nearly defunct, and called upon the Union Ministry of Finance to take immediate corrective steps.
The case came before the High Court in the backdrop of increasing frustration among litigants whose matters remained indefinitely pending before the DRT due to the absence of a Presiding Officer. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court by drawing attention to the fact that despite the vital importance of the tribunal in adjudicating disputes related to recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions, the DRT at Prayagraj was non-functional for a long duration. The prolonged vacancy of the Presiding Officer had led to stagnation of cases, causing financial uncertainty and legal distress for stakeholders.
The Court, taking note of the urgency of the situation, recorded that the non-availability of a judicial forum to address grievances of parties amounts to a denial of access to justice. The tribunal was established with the specific purpose of expeditious disposal of recovery matters under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. Its non-functioning thus not only defeated the legislative intent behind its creation but also contributed to increasing pendency, thereby eroding public trust in institutional mechanisms designed to resolve financial disputes.
Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh, who presided over the matter, expressed his dismay that despite repeated correspondences and notifications by concerned authorities, no concrete steps had been taken by the Union Ministry of Finance to fill the post of the Presiding Officer. The bench was of the opinion that the matter had crossed the threshold of administrative inaction and now stood at a juncture where judicial intervention was warranted to prod the authorities into action.
In his observations, Justice Singh emphasized that tribunals like the DRT are not optional platforms but statutory mechanisms meant to function with continuity and seriousness. Their absence or inaction for prolonged periods reflects systemic failure and significantly impairs the judicial process. The court also acknowledged the impact of such inaction on financial institutions, many of whom depend on timely adjudication for recovery of loans and enforcement of securities. Likewise, borrowers facing unjustified recovery or looking to raise objections are left without recourse, which disturbs the balance of fairness intended by law.
To resolve the situation, the High Court directed the Union Finance Ministry to file a detailed affidavit explaining the cause of the delay in appointment and the steps being undertaken to ensure resumption of the DRT’s operations. The court also sought a time-bound plan to make the tribunal functional and warned that further delay could invite stricter judicial scrutiny. The bench categorically stated that justice delayed due to administrative apathy cannot be accepted, especially when it concerns specialized forums like the DRT which were created to provide swift redressal.
In a broader sense, the judgment serves as a reminder of the critical role tribunals play in the Indian legal system and the necessity of ensuring their uninterrupted operation. The High Court made it clear that the government’s failure to make timely appointments cannot become a norm, and such neglect undermines not only the effectiveness of the tribunal system but also the principle of speedy justice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court’s strong remarks and its proactive stance underscore the urgency of restoring functional parity to judicial and quasi-judicial forums across the country. It reiterated that access to a competent forum is not a procedural privilege but a substantive right that cannot be withheld due to bureaucratic indifference. The case has now been posted for further hearing with directions for compliance and accountability, as the Court continues to monitor the developments in ensuring the full revival of DRT Prayagraj.
In conclusion, this judgment from the Allahabad High Court goes beyond the redressal of an individual grievance. It shines a spotlight on the deeper administrative failings affecting judicial institutions and demands immediate executive attention. By holding the Ministry accountable and stressing on institutional functionality, the Court has reaffirmed its role as the sentinel of justice, determined to ensure that specialized tribunals function not merely on paper but actively deliver on their legal mandate.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.