Today, On 19th November, Supreme Court quashes Tribunal Reforms Act provisions on appointment and tenure, ruling that they violate separation of powers and judicial independence, amount to a legislative override of a binding judgment, and fail the constitutional test, requiring urgent corrective action from the government.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court invalidated the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, concerning the appointment and tenure of tribunal members, deeming them unconstitutional as they violated previous court rulings on the matter.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran stated that the provisions, which had previously been struck down, were reintroduced with only slight modifications.
The Court declared,
“After comparing the Ordinance and the 2021 Act, it is clear that the very provisions earlier struck down have been reintroduced with only minimal changes. We therefore hold that the 2021 Act cannot stand it violates the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. This is essentially a legislative override of a binding judgment without addressing the defects. It fails the constitutional test and is struck down as unconstitutional.”
The Court also reprimanded the Central government for its failure to adhere to the Supreme Court’s repeated directives regarding the operation of tribunals.
It expressed discontent, emphasizing,
“We must express our displeasure at how the Union of India has chosen not to follow directions issued and instead of following the principle on independence and functioning of tribunals… it has re-enacted the same provisions. There is already a pendency of cases, and such cases consume valuable judicial time. The government must exercise its power with due regard to judicial precedents so that judicial time is used in dispensing justice.”
The Court Ordered,
“With an already heavy backlog, such litigation unnecessarily drains judicial time. The government must exercise its legislative powers with due respect for judicial precedents so that courts can focus on delivering justice. The principles and directions laid down in MBA-4 and MBA-5 will continue to govern the appointment and tenure of all tribunal members.”
The Court finally Ordered,
“Incremental or piecemeal changes cannot address the deep structural flaws in the tribunal system. We give the Union of India three months to set up the National Tribunals Commission. The tenure of ITAT members will continue to be governed by the earlier statute, and appointments made prior to the 2021 Act will be regulated by the MBA-4 and MBA-5 framework, not by the shortened terms introduced in the 2021 law. We also place on record our appreciation for all counsel who assisted the Court in this matter.”
Consequently, the Court ordered the Union government to establish a National Tribunals Commission within three months.
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, succeeded the earlier Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which had faced similar constitutional challenges.
In July 2021, the Court cancelled Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, as amended by the Ordinance, particularly the provision limiting tribunal members’ tenure to four years.
This was found to conflict with the principles of separation of powers, judicial independence, the rule of law, and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Madras Bar Association III case.
Earlier, in November 2020, the Supreme Court had ruled that the term for the Chairperson and tribunal members should be five years, outlining several modifications to the relevant 2020 Rules. To circumvent this ruling, the government introduced the 2021 Ordinance, maintaining the four-year tenure, which was again struck down in the July 2021 decision, leading to the creation of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
This law was subsequently challenged by the Madras Bar Association, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, and other petitioners. After considering arguments from all parties, including Attorney General R Venkataramani, the Court reserved its judgment on November 11.
In addition to the shortened tenure, the petitions questioned the establishment of a minimum age of 50 for appointments another provision struck down in the 2021 ruling.
They also contested the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), citing excessive governmental influence in the appointment process, and the stipulation requiring the SCSC to propose two names instead of one.
Senior advocates Arvind Datar and CS Vaidyanathan represented the petitioners, while Senior Advocates Porus F Kaka, Balbir Singh, Sachit Jolly, Sidharth Luthra, BM Chatterji, Sanjay Jain, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and advocate Ninad Laud appeared for other participants.
The Attorney General for India, R Venkatramani, represented the Centre.
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.
Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA
Read Attachment
Read Live Coverage