Supreme Court Strikes Down Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, Says It Violated Judicial Independence

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 19) struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, relating to the appointments, tenure, and service conditions of the members of various Tribunals.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed displeasure at the Union Government for not giving effect to the directions given by the Court in its earlier judgments regarding Tribunal appointments. The bench disapproved of the Tribunal Reforms Act for re-enacting the same provisions which were earlier struck down in previous judgments.

The Court held that the Act cannot be sustained as it violates the principles relating to "separation of powers and judicial independence." The Act amounts to "legislative overruling" of binding judgments without curing any defects.

"The provisions of the Impugned Act cannot be sustained. They violate the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence, which are firmly embedded in the text, structure, and spirit of the Constitution. The Impugned Act directly contradicts binding judicial pronouncements that have repeatedly clarified the standards governing the appointment, tenure, and functioning of tribunal members. Instead of curing the defects identified by this Court, the Impugned Act merely reproduces, in slightly altered form, the very provisions earlier struck down. This amounts to a legislative override in the strictest sense: an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities. Such an approach is impermissible under our constitutional scheme. Because the Impugned Act fails to remove the defects identified in prior judgments and instead reenacts them under a new label, it falls afoul of the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. Accordingly, the impugned provisions are struck down as unconstitutional," the judgment held.

The bench held that until the Parliament enacts a new Act giving effect to the directions in the previous judgments, the directions given in the previous Madras Bar Association cases (MBA IV and MBA V) will continue to operate.

The Court noted that the minimum age bar of fifty years for all appointments, the truncated four-year tenure with upper age caps of 70/67, the requirement that the Search-cum-Selection Committee forward a panel of two names for each vacancy, and the fixing of allowances and benefits to those of equivalent civil servants are all provisions, which have already been judicially tested and struck down. The Court has expressly held that these measures are arbitrary, destructive of judicial independence, and amount to an impermissible legislative override of binding directions.

The Court pronounced the judgment in a petition filed in 2021 by the Madras Bar Association which challenged the Act as contrary to the previous judgments of the Supreme Court, which held that Tribunal members should have at least 5 years tenure, lawyers with minimum 10 years of experience must be considered eligible, etc.

The Court also directed the Union to form a National Tribunal Commission within a period of four months.

The Court clarified that all appointments of Members and Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was completed before the commencement of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, but whose formal appointment notifications were issued after the Act came into force, shall be protected. Such appointments will continue to be governed by the parent statutes and by the conditions of service as laid down in Madras Bar Association (IV) and MBA (V) judgments, rather than by the truncated tenure and altered service conditions introduced by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

In the 2020 Madras Bar Association case (MBA IV), the Supreme Court had struck down the Tribunal Rules 2020. Next year, in the 2021 Madras Bar Association case (MBA V), the Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021. In these judgments, the Court had mandated that Tribunal members should have at least 5 year tenure, and that lawyers having a minimum 10 years of experience must be considered for appointments. However, the 2021 Act prescribed 4 4-year tenure and imposed a minimum age limit of 50 years for appointments. Also, the Act prescribed that the search-cum selection committee will recommend two persons for the post of Chairperson, deviating from the earlier judgments.

The judgment in the present matter was reserved on November 11. During the course of hearings, CJI BR Gavai had expressed displeasure at the Attorney General for filing an application seeking to refer the matter to a larger bench, asking if it was a "tactic" to delay the hearing till the CJI's retirement. On a later date, CJI disapproved of the AG's plea to adjourn the hearing, observing that it seemed to be an attempt to avoid the bench.

In the judgment, the Court also recorded reasons for rejecting the plea for a larger bench reference. The Court observed that the application was made at a belated stage and accepting the same would "risk undermining fairness in the conduct of the hearing." Also, there is no meaningful purpose in making a reference, as the issue was related to the application of the consistent views expressed in a catena of precedents.

Parliament cannot re-enact struck down provisions

The judgment authored by CJI Gavai, which started with a quote of Dr Ambedkar on the binding nature of the Constitution on all organs of the State, observed : "When the Court interprets the Constitution and pronounces upon the validity of a statute, that pronouncement becomes the authoritative and binding declaration of the law."

"Consequently, once the Court has struck down a provision or issued binding directions after identifying a constitutional defect, Parliament cannot simply override or contradict that judicial decision by reenacting the very same measure in a different form. What Parliament may legitimately do is to cure the defect identified by the Court, whether by altering the underlying conditions, removing the constitutional infirmity, or restructuring the statutory framework in a manner consistent with the Court's reasoning. A valid legislative response must therefore engage with and remedy the constitutional violation pointed out by the judiciary. It cannot merely restate or repackage the invalidated provision," the judgment stated.

Law on Tribunals must conform to principles of judicial independence 

The Court rejected the argument of the Union that a law cannot be tested on "abstract principles" such as judicial independence and seperation of powers. The Court held that these provisions are firmly embedded in the previous rulings.

"When Parliament designs or alters the tribunal system, it must do so in a manner consistent with the constitutional requirements of independence, impartiality, and effective adjudication. A law that undermines these foundational values, such as by enabling executive control over appointments, curtailing tenure arbitrarily, or weakening institutional autonomy, does not merely offend an “abstract principle”. It strikes at the core of the constitutional arrangement," CJI wrote in the judgment.

For the petitioners, Senior Advocates Arvind P. Datar, C. S. Vaidyanathan, Sidharth Luthra, P. S. Patwalia, Sanjay Jain, Porus F. Kaka, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Balbir Singh, Gagan Gupta, Puneet Mittal, Sachit Jolly, B. M. Chatterji and Ninad Laud, appeared.

R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, and Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, represented the Union.

Case : Madras Bar Association v. Union of India | WP(c) 1018 OF 2021

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1120

Click here to read the judgment