The Supreme Court questioned the Centre’s 50-year age rule for tribunal appointments, with CJI Gavai asking if judges appointed at 37 were “inexperienced,” as heated exchanges marked the ongoing hearing on the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Monday witnessed intense exchanges between Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani as the court heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
The Attorney General attempted to raise preliminary objections regarding the maintainability and scope of the petitions. However, the Bench, led by CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran, refused to entertain the objections, observing that such issues should have been raised earlier.
CJI Gavai reminded the AG that during the previous hearing, the Centre had sought an adjournment on personal grounds and did not raise any preliminary objections then.
“You cannot raise these objections after we have heard one side fully on merits,”
the CJI remarked sharply.
When the Attorney General insisted that “lines cannot be drawn on preliminary objections,” the CJI warned that rejecting the application could lead to an observation that the Union is attempting to avoid this Bench.
“We will not hear all this now after we have heard one side on merits,”
the CJI said firmly.
Justice Chandran also intervened, pointing out that such objections should have been raised “at least at some stage” before arguments began.
“You took an adjournment because you wanted to come and argue,”
Justice Chandran noted.
The CJI further questioned the timing of the Centre’s move, saying:
“Are we wrong in getting this impression that this application was filed only to avoid this Bench?”
The AG denied any such motive, stating that the application was bona fide and meant to ensure a fair hearing.
On merits, AG Venkataramani defended the Tribunal Reforms Act, saying that the law should be allowed to operate for some time before being subjected to judicial invalidation.
“Let the law gain some experience first. Tribunal establishments have now gained some history. To say that the entire Act should be struck down now won’t be justified,”
the AG submitted.
He further argued that the minimum age limit of 50 years for tribunal appointments was meant to ensure that only experienced individuals serve as members.
However, CJI Gavai disagreed, questioning the rationale behind such restrictions:
“When a district judge gets appointed at 35, what is the use of restricting the age of tribunal judges?”
“So high court judges at 40 years are not experienced? By your analogy, I was also inexperienced when I was appointed as a High Court judge!”
The Chief Justice also cited examples of eminent jurists who were appointed to the bench at a young age:
“Justice Anand was elevated at 37 and Justice Bharucha at 38,”
CJI Gavai pointed out, rejecting the argument that judicial experience correlates strictly with age.
The AG, however, termed these as “isolated incidents” and urged the court to allow the Act to “stabilise and gain experience” before being reconsidered.
ALSO READ: Justice System Must Stand Firmly With Every Woman: CJI-Designate Surya Kant
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioners, clarified that the challenges pertain to both the validity of the law and issues surrounding individual appointments.
However, the CJI made it clear:
“We are restricting ourselves to the validity.”
The Bench suggested that the next phase of the hearing would be dedicated to examining the constitutional validity of the provisions, including those relating to tenure, selection process, and age limits for tribunal members.
The CJI indicated that the matter could continue later in the week or early next week, stating:
“We can continue to hear this on Thursday or Friday. But don’t make it too close, I need time to write the judgment.”
The hearing will now resume at 2 PM, with further submissions expected from both the Attorney General and Senior Advocate Arvind Datar.
Case Title:
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021
READ ORDER