Re-enactment Of Struck Down Provisions Shows Form Of Administration Is Inconsistent With Spirit Of Constitution : Supreme Court On Tribunal Reforms Act

While striking down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the Supreme Court made a scathing criticism of the re-enactment of the very same provisions, which were earlier struck down by the Court. This, the Court said, showed that the "form of the administration” was inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution.

The judgment authored by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai referred to the famous quote of Dr BR Ambedkar that it was possible to pervert the Constitution by making the administration inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution even while maintaining its form.

Noting that the provisions of the 2021 Act were a literal re-enactment of the previous rules relating to Tribunals which were struck down in 2019 (Rojer Mathew), 2020(Madras Bar Association -IV), and 2021 (Madras Bar Association-V) cases, the Court said:

"The foresighted constitutional vision of Dr. Ambedkar is strikingly evident in the present series of litigations concerning the tribunal system. The repeated reenactment of the same provisions, which have been struck down by the judiciary, shows that the “form of the administration” is being made “inconsistent” with the spirit of the Constitution, as Dr. Ambedkar had highlighted."

The Court recorded its strong disapproval of the Union's refusal to heed to the earlier directions issued regarding the appointments and service conditions of Tribunal Members.

"We must express our disapproval of the manner in which the Union of India has repeatedly chosen to not accept the directions of this Court on the very issues that have already been conclusively settled through a series of judgments. It is indeed unfortunate that instead of giving effect to the well-established principles laid down by this Court on the question of the independence and functioning of tribunals, the legislature has chosen to re- enact or re-introduce provisions that reopen the same constitutional debates under different enactments and rules. "

Responsibility of reducing pendency not only on Courts

The Court warned that the constant revival of issues already settled by constitutional benches drains precious judicial time that should be spent on matters of real public and constitutional significance.

Noting that courts at all levels are already struggling under a “staggering pendency,” the bench said the repeated recurrence of identical legal disputes, triggered by legislative reenactments of provisions earlier struck down, imposes an unnecessary burden on the judicial system.

"The responsibility of reducing pendency in courts does not rest only on the judiciary. It is a shared institutional duty. While the judiciary must strive to enhance efficiency in case management and decision-making, the other branches of government must exercise their legislative and executive powers with due regard to constitutional principles and judicial precedent. Respect for settled law is as essential to good governance as it is to judicial discipline. It ensures that institutional time is spent in advancing justice rather than revisiting questions long resolved," the Court stated.

The Court reminded that "where a legislative measure attempts to nullify or circumvent a binding constitutional judgment without curing the underlying defect, it not only exceeds Parliament's authority but also violates the doctrine of constitutional supremacy itself."

Emphasising the limits of Parliament's legislative power when faced with a binding judicial pronouncement, the Court said that the legislature cannot “override or contradict” a judgment by simply reenacting the very measure the Court has already struck down. Such an approach, the bench noted, undermines constitutional supremacy and erodes the separation of powers.

The Court underlined that a legitimate legislative response must directly address the constitutional defect identified by the judiciary. This requires altering the underlying conditions, removing the infirmity, or restructuring the statutory framework in a manner that aligns 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 bench observed.

Justice Vinod Chandran, who concurred with the CJI that the 2021 Act is a replica of the struck down Ordinance, said it was "old wine in a new bottle."

Also from the judgment - Supreme Court Directs Union Government To Establish National Tribunals Commission Within 4 Months