In a farewell address that transcended ceremonial formality and evolved into a broader reflection on judicial philosophy, institutional accountability and the future of commercial adjudication in India, former Supreme Court Judge and outgoing Chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Justice Ashok Bhushan, observed that the true legitimacy of judicial institutions does not emanate merely from statutory authority but from the confidence reposed in them by the public. Speaking at a farewell function organised by the NCLT and NCLAT Bar Association upon the completion of his tenure as Chairperson, Justice Bhushan emphasised that every judicial institution ultimately derives its strength from fairness, integrity, transparency and the trust of litigants. His address, though delivered outside the courtroom, carries considerable jurisprudential significance at a time when India’s commercial tribunals continue to shoulder an expanding responsibility under the Companies Act, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Competition Act and other specialised regulatory frameworks.
Reflecting upon nearly five years at the helm of the NCLAT, Justice Bhushan remarked that public office is temporary, but institutions endure beyond the individuals who occupy them. According to him, every person entrusted with a constitutional or statutory office acts merely as a custodian whose foremost responsibility is to leave the institution stronger, more efficient and more respected than it was inherited. The observation encapsulates an important constitutional philosophy—that institutional continuity, rather than individual accomplishment, remains the cornerstone of democratic governance. Justice Bhushan noted that if his tenure had contributed in any measure to strengthening the NCLAT or improving the quality of corporate jurisprudence, he would consider his service meaningfully rewarded.
A recurring theme throughout the address was the centrality of public confidence in judicial administration. Justice Bhushan observed that courts and tribunals exercise authority not because statutes confer power upon them alone, but because citizens voluntarily accept judicial decisions as legitimate manifestations of the rule of law. This public confidence, he stated, is nurtured through consistency, impartiality, intellectual honesty and timely delivery of justice. Echoing a long-standing constitutional principle, he reminded members of the Bar that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Every litigant approaching a judicial forum, irrespective of the monetary value of the dispute or the stature of the parties, carries an expectation that the dispute will be adjudicated fairly, patiently and without prejudice. Preservation of that confidence, according to Justice Bhushan, constitutes the highest institutional responsibility of every adjudicatory body.
Justice Bhushan also devoted considerable attention to the indispensable role of the legal profession in the administration of justice. Rejecting the notion that adjudication is exclusively the function of judges, he described the Bar as an “equal partner” in the judicial process. According to him, the quality of judicial decisions is inseparably linked to the quality of advocacy presented before the Bench. He acknowledged the contribution of senior advocates, young practitioners and members of the insolvency Bar whose assistance enabled the Tribunal to efficiently decide complex disputes involving corporate insolvency, mergers, competition law and company law. His observations reaffirm an established principle of legal ethics—that the effective functioning of courts and tribunals depends upon mutual respect and intellectual collaboration between the Bench and the Bar.
The remarks assume particular significance in light of the institutional role performed by the NCLAT within India’s commercial justice system. Constituted under Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2013, the NCLAT serves as the appellate authority against orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). In addition to company law appeals, it exercises appellate jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, hears appeals arising from orders of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), adjudicates appeals against decisions of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and also hears matters concerning the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA). Consequently, the Tribunal occupies a central position in India’s corporate regulatory architecture, influencing insolvency resolution, competition enforcement, corporate restructuring and financial governance.
Justice Bhushan’s observations also acquire contemporary relevance because India’s insolvency regime continues to undergo rapid evolution. Since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in 2016, the NCLAT has delivered several landmark judgments clarifying issues concerning resolution plans, operational creditors, avoidance transactions, liquidation, cross-border insolvency and the scope of judicial review over decisions of the Committee of Creditors. During Justice Bhushan’s tenure, the Tribunal adjudicated appeals involving some of the country’s largest corporate insolvency proceedings, significantly contributing to the development of Indian insolvency jurisprudence. His emphasis on institutional credibility therefore resonates beyond abstract judicial philosophy and directly impacts investor confidence, commercial certainty and the ease of doing business in India.
An equally important aspect of the address concerns the evolving role of specialised tribunals within India’s constitutional framework. Since the establishment of tribunalisation as a mechanism for specialised dispute resolution, constitutional courts have repeatedly emphasised that tribunals must maintain standards of independence, competence and procedural fairness comparable to constitutional courts. Justice Bhushan’s observations reinforce this expectation by stressing that specialised adjudicatory institutions cannot rely solely upon statutory creation for legitimacy; they must continuously earn public trust through efficiency, consistency and transparent functioning. In an era where commercial disputes increasingly migrate from conventional civil courts to specialised tribunals, maintaining institutional credibility becomes indispensable for sustaining confidence in India’s regulatory ecosystem.
The address also reflects broader constitutional values governing public administration. Justice Bhushan described public office as a “public trust,” observing that holders of constitutional and statutory positions bear a fiduciary obligation towards the institutions they serve rather than towards personal legacy or individual recognition. This articulation closely aligns with constitutional doctrines developed by the Supreme Court concerning institutional accountability, administrative fairness and responsible exercise of public power. By emphasising custodianship over ownership of office, the speech reiterates that judicial institutions ultimately belong to the constitutional order rather than to the individuals temporarily entrusted with their administration.
Another noteworthy dimension of Justice Bhushan’s remarks concerns judicial culture within specialised tribunals. He expressed gratitude towards fellow Members of the Bench, observing that mutual respect, intellectual openness and collaborative deliberation enriched institutional decision-making. Such observations underscore that judicial independence is not merely an external safeguard against executive interference but also an internal institutional culture characterised by collegiality, reasoned dialogue and respect for differing legal perspectives. These values acquire particular significance in appellate tribunals where multi-member benches routinely decide complex commercial disputes involving substantial economic consequences.
From the perspective of corporate law and insolvency practice, Justice Bhushan’s tenure coincided with a transformative period in Indian commercial jurisprudence. Questions concerning resolution timelines, treatment of operational creditors, promoter disqualification, cross-border insolvency, group insolvency, competition regulation and financial sector reforms increasingly reached the NCLAT. Several appellate pronouncements delivered during this period subsequently shaped commercial practices across banking, infrastructure, manufacturing and financial services. His farewell observations therefore resonate not merely as personal reflections but as institutional guidance for the future trajectory of commercial adjudication in India.
Justice Bhushan demitted office on attaining the statutory age of seventy years, following a distinguished judicial career that included service as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Judge of the Supreme Court of India and Chairperson of the NCLAT. His tenure witnessed the Tribunal’s continued evolution as one of India’s most significant commercial appellate forums, with decisions influencing insolvency resolution, company law governance and market regulation. Following his retirement, Justice Yogesh Khanna has assumed charge as the Officiating Chairperson of the NCLAT pending further appointments.
Ultimately, Justice Ashok Bhushan’s farewell address serves as more than a valedictory speech marking the conclusion of an accomplished judicial career. It constitutes a thoughtful reaffirmation of the constitutional values upon which judicial institutions rest public confidence, institutional integrity, ethical advocacy and impartial adjudication. At a time when specialised tribunals increasingly shape India’s commercial and regulatory landscape, his reflections offer an enduring reminder that statutory powers alone cannot sustain judicial legitimacy. Courts and tribunals command authority because citizens trust them to decide disputes fairly, independently and in accordance with law. Preserving that trust, as Justice Bhushan emphasised, remains the true foundation upon which every judicial institution ultimately stands.
