Today, On 11th November, The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The pleas argue that the law undermines judicial independence and weakens the functioning of key tribunals across India.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court postponed its decision on a series of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021.
This Act dismantles several appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, and revises various provisions regarding the appointment and tenure of judicial and other members across different tribunals.
A bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran reserved judgment following the conclusion of Attorney General R Venkataramani’s arguments, who emphasized that the law was enacted by Parliament after a lengthy deliberation and urged the court to allow the statute to remain in effect.
The Supreme Court began the final hearing in this matter on October 16.
Earlier, On Monday, the bench questioned how the Centre could reintroduce the same Tribunals Reforms law previously invalidated in multiple provisions merely with slight modifications, particularly without addressing the foundation of the earlier judgment.
The petitions filed contest the Act’s provisions on the grounds that they infringe upon the principles of judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, replaced the earlier Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which had faced similar constitutional challenges.
The Supreme Court had previously struck down the provision of the ordinance that shortened the tenures of tribunal members and chairpersons to four years.
The Court noted that such a brief term could foster executive influence over the judiciary. It ruled that the tenure should be five years to provide job security, with a maximum age limit of 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members.
Additionally, the bench cancelled the minimum age requirement of 50 for tribunal appointments. It emphasized the importance of including younger members in the judiciary to maintain its vitality, asserting that a minimum of 10 years of legal practice should suffice as a qualification for judicial members, akin to the requirements for high court judges.
The verdict also denied the government the authority to appoint from a list of two names put forward by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
The ordinance was issued in April 2021, and after the Supreme Court’s verdict, the government introduced and passed the Tribunals Reforms Act in August 2021, containing provisions closely resembling those which had been struck down.