Today, On 6th November, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai expressed sharp displeasure over repeated adjournments in the Madras Bar Association case, remarking that it was “very unfair to the Court” and questioning how many more times such delays would be sought.
In a hearing before the Supreme Court , Chief Justice of India (CJI) expressed strong displeasure after Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani sought yet another adjournment in the Madras Bar Association case.
The request for adjournment was conveyed to the Bench by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi questioned Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani for requesting an adjournment only a few days before CJI Gavai’s retirement from the Supreme Court.
The CJI, visibly dissatisfied, remarked,
“We’ve already accommodated you twice. How many more times? If you want the matter taken up after November 24, say so since I demit office then. This is very unfair to the Court. Every time, you seek adjournments citing international arbitration.”
Responding to the observation, ASG Aishwarya Bhati informed the Bench,
“The learned AG is on his legs, My Lords.”
However, the Chief Justice did not conceal his concern about repeated delays in such an important matter.
He remarked,
“Then he should have been present here. We hold the highest respect for the office of the Attorney General, the country’s top constitutional lawyer, but if hearings are disrupted in this manner…..”
During the exchange, the CJI further asked,
“Where is Mr. Dattar?”
A counsel appearing online informed the Court,
“Mr Dattar is not available today but he is available to argue the matter tomorrow as well as on Monday.”
The Supreme Court’s comments underline growing frustration over repeated adjournments in high-profile constitutional matters.
Also Read: All Three Pillars of Democracy Must Work Together for Welfare of Citizens: CJI BR Gavai
The Madras Bar Association case, which has been pending for some time, relates to issues surrounding tribunals and appointments, and the Court has been urging an early hearing and resolution.
The Madras Bar Association (MBA) case is one of the most significant and long-running legal battles in India concerning tribunals and the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
Earlier, The Supreme Court received a plea from the Madras Bar Association and others, alleging that Sections 3(1), 3(7), 5, and 7(1) of the Tribunal Reform Act, 2021 violate Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution of India.
In response, the Central Government asserted that the Act does not infringe upon fundamental rights or any constitutional provisions, emphasizing its authority to enact such legislation. The government’s reply indicated that the Act is a culmination of numerous Supreme Court decisions and various statutes and rules on the same issue, which is unprecedented in the Supreme Court’s history.
The Central Government stated,
“It has been held in a series of cases including by two Constitutional Bench decisions and by a 7 judges bench of this Hon’ble Court that basic structure in the Constitution can only be used to test the validity of a Constitutional amendment but has no relevance when it comes to validity of a statue.”
The Act disbanded several existing appellate bodies and transferred their functions to other judicial entities. It also established a four-year term for the Chairperson and members of the Tribunal, with an upper age limit of 70 years for the Chairperson and 67 years for other members.
Additionally, it dissolved tribunals created under various acts, including the Cinematograph Act of 1952, the Trade Marks Act of 1999, the Copyright Act of 1957, the Customs Act of 1962, the Patents Act of 1970, and the Airports Authority of India Act of 1994, with pending cases being redirected to commercial or civil courts or high courts.
The Central Government described the abolished appellate tribunals as an “unwanted additional layer of judicial intervention.”
A lack of human resources, particularly an insufficient number of judges, has been identified as a significant factor contributing to the backlog of cases in courts.
The government initiated the rationalization of tribunals in 2015, leading to the abolition or merger of seven tribunals through the Finance Act of 2017, reducing their total from 26 to 19 based on functional similarities.
Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA