The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken serious note of the prolonged delays in the functioning of the State Arbitration Tribunal. On April 21, 2025, the Court directed the State Government to urgently assess the need for appointing additional members to the tribunal and take swift action to fill existing and potential vacancies.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain ordered,
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays Principal’s Appointment Over Violation of Seniority Rule
“The State is directed to complete the proposed amendment process and notify the same within two months. Additionally, it must evaluate if more members are needed. If so, the process of appointment shall be completed within two months thereafter.”
The Court emphasized that this entire process—both assessment and appointments—must be concluded within four months. Failure to comply would require senior state officials to appear personally before the Court.
This direction follows previous instructions by the Court to speed up administrative approvals and implement necessary amendments in the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The Act governs arbitration in disputes involving the State Government or public sector bodies controlled by it.
The urgency of the matter came to light as the petitioner’s counsel highlighted an alarming backlog, stating,
“The statutory tribunal is taking 10 to 15 years to resolve disputes. Even if one post is filled, it won’t help much. What’s needed are multiple new benches to handle the caseload.”
He cited the Supreme Court’s observation in M/s Essel Infra Projects Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the apex court stressed the importance of timely arbitration and recommended that states create more positions if necessary.
In response, the State Government informed the Court that out of the six sanctioned posts, three—two technical and one judicial—were vacant. While 25 applications had been received for the judicial member role and two for the technical posts, actual appointments had yet to be made.
The Court reiterated that filling these vacancies alone is not enough. It is essential to assess whether the current structure is adequate to manage the workload and to act promptly if it falls short.
“If the directions are not complied with within four months, Respondents No. 1 and 2 shall appear in Court and explain the reasons for non-compliance,” the order warned.
The next hearing for the matter has been scheduled for August 28, 2025.
