Today, On 7th November, CJI Gavai remarked, “I Became a Judge at 42, Perhaps I Didn’t Have Enough Experience Then,” during the Supreme Court hearing on the Tribunal Reforms Act case, as Senior Advocate Arvind Datar questioned the 50-year minimum age requirement for tribunal appointments.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday continued hearing the case Madras Bar Association Case, which challenges the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act.
The Bench comprised CJI B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar said that the central issues relate to the minimum age requirement of 50 years, the four-year tenure, and the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
He stressed that the 50-year age criterion unfairly restricts opportunities for deserving candidates.
At this point, Justice Gavai smiled and remarked,
“I became a judge at 42 perhaps I didn’t have enough experience then.”
To this, Datar replied,
“I’d rather not risk contempt by commenting on that.”
Justice Chandran then observed,
“So, a 50-year-old tribunal member’s decision will be reviewed by a 45-year-old High Court judge!”
Datar pointed out that an officer generally reaches the rank of Additional Secretary at around the age of 50. He argued that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), once seen as one of the most effective and model tribunals, has now been “dismantled in a rather unreasonable manner.”
He emphasised that there is no empirical data or rational basis for setting 50 as the minimum age for appointment.
He continued,
“My humble submission is that 50 should be struck down. Don’t confuse eligibility as suitability. If you make the age 40 or 45, the pool is increased for selection.”
Datar further argued that once tribunals perform judicial functions, the Parliament’s discretion on such matters becomes subject to judicial review, as the Supreme Court has already held.
He gave examples of tribunals such as NCLAT and DRT, saying,
“If you are taking over judicial functions subject to executive control, then that is not permissible.”
He explained that these tribunals handle subjects like company law, taxation, telecommunications, consumer law, RERA, and electricity, where they decide questions of fact, while High Courts deal with questions of law.
At this point, Justice Gavai commented,
“When we come here, we all don’t know intricacies for eg of IBC.”
Responding, Datar said,
“It’s a sad situation for four years he does something then goes to GST. One prayer we have made is to bring company law back to High Courts as there is no time due to meeting the deadlines of IBC. For this four-year term, vast majority of retired people are applying. No young people coming forward.”
Appearing online, Attorney General R. Venkataramani began by saying,
“I must begin with a series of apologies. The tribunal is convening again at 1:45 p.m. I have prepared a brief note on the validity aspect, which will now be shared. I intend to explain the rationale behind the Government of India’s decision. This matter, however, should not be approached anecdotally. The Court may uphold the law while suggesting ways to address certain concerns. If the Court permits, I request that the matter be taken up on Monday.”
The matter will resume at 2 p.m.
Previously, yesterday, 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…..”
The Supreme Court’s comments underline growing frustration over repeated adjournments in high-profile constitutional matters.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani of India has clarified that his request to postpone the hearing in the Madras Bar Association case before the Supreme Court was not meant to delay proceedings.
Instead, it was necessary due to his involvement in a significant arbitration case for the Government of India concerning a dispute with Reliance Ltd.
The clarification came a day after Chief Justice of India BR Gavai expressed his displeasure when a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the Attorney General in the Madras Bar Association case.
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
Read Live Coverage
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
