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 ...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

The Court observed that the Act re-enacted provisions earlier struck down in a new label.

Tags