Recently, the Supreme Court of India set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal wherein the said tribunal had directed the reconsideration of appointments of Members of State Pollution Control Boards. The SC reminded the tribunal that though well-intentioned, it wasn’t within the NGT’s jurisdiction to do so, and such orders, if at all, could only be passed by Constitutional Courts under the writ jurisdiction, that is, the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Why I am referring to this topical case is because of the utter confusion created by tribunalisation in the administration of justice, with the inception of many of these parallel bodies resulting in more chaos than actually resolving any predicament. It was expected that with series of decisions of the SC and HCs flagging various issues related to tribunals, including independence, and also the Prime Minister calling for introspection into tribunalisation in 2015, things would move in a more methodical manner. That expectation, however, was utopian. To add to it, the rules for tribunals notified by the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance in June this year embark upon a journey opposite to what had been directed by the SC and also stated by the political executive and endorsed by the Ministry of Law & Justice. While the SC had directed the placement of all tribunals under the Law Ministry, the new rules place tribunals under parent ministries — those very entities against which the same tribunals have to pass orders! While the SC had asked for a minimum tenure of 5 to 7 years for members of tribunals, the new rules have reduced the tenures in many tribunals to 3 years. While the SC had directed the deletion of vague criterion for appointment such as experience in management, finance, economics, administration etc, the new rules have prescribed just that. While the SC had directed the primacy of the judiciary in the selection process for appointments, the new rules take away that primacy and rather provide that even in the absence of representatives of the judiciary, the appointments in tribunals shall remain valid. While the SC had ruled against the system of re-appointment to maintain independence, the new rules provide just the opposite. While the SC had directed that the Secretary of the concerned department against whom orders are to be passed by a tribunal shall not sit in the selection committee, the new rules ignore this and endorse a system of the litigant (government) selecting its own adjudicator.