Four-Year Tenure For Tribunal Members Insufficient, Petitioners Tell Supreme Court In Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act

The Supreme Court on Thursday(October 16) heard the Madras Bar Association case concerning the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the issues pertaining to the reduction in tenures of members and Chairpersons of Tribunals across the country.Previously, Sr Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioners, was asked to submit a comprehensive report on commercial Tribunals, as the Court was of the view that different superannuation norms were causing a lot of confusion. Yesterday, Datar referred to several ordinances issued by the government with respect to the administration/ conditions of service for various kinds of Tribunal Members, which have been challenged in the batch of petitions as contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court. He flagged the following provisions as contrary to the previous judgments of the Court -(1) minimum age requirement of 50 years to be Tribunal members; (2) search-cum selection committee mandating the recommendation of two persons for the post of Chairperson; (3) 4 years tenure for a tribunal's member/ chairperson.He stressed that, as per the set precedents like the decision in Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, Tribunal Members and Chairpersons should be given a minimum of 5 years tenure.Sr Adv Porus Kaka, appearing for the Bombay ITAT Association, also weighed in to submit that reducing the tenure of the tribunal members to 4 years would be counterproductive. He referred to the decision of Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd & Ors., which held that there needs to be a uniform age of superannuation for all members in all the Tribunals. He stressed because of the recent ordinances reducing the tenures in tribunals like ITAT have become discouraging for legal professionals to take up the positions as members of chairpersons "Four years is short enough. But if you put them back in line, look at the chaos it causes to the institution, look at the damage it causes and this institution has been there from 1961 onwards ....certainly there has to be more than just 4 years and then banning themfrom appearing after the tribunal - no advocate would come forward, no professional would come forward." The bench also heard brief submissions in a connected writ challenging the changed rules for the eligibility of Chartered Accountants as members in ITAT. The counsel stressed that advocates with 10 years of experience could be appointed as members under the recently amended Rules of 2020-2021, but the CAs required 25 years of experience, while there existed parity before. Brief submissions were also made by other intervenors. Sr Advocate PS Patwalia also appeared for a few intervenors. AG R Venkataramani appeared for the Union. Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

Four-Year Tenure For Tribunal Members Insufficient, Petitioners Tell Supreme Court In Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Four-Year Tenure For Tribunal Members Insufficient, Petitioners Tell Supreme Court In Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers