SC strikes down Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 provisions for going against its judgments

Terming it “legislative overruling” of binding judgments without curing any defects, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, provisions on appointment and tenure of members for violating judicial independence and going against its earlier judgments on these issues.

"Therefore, the provisions of the impugned Act cannot be sustained as they violate separation of powers and judicial independence principles. It amounts to legislative overwrite without curing any defects and the binding judgment. It falls foul. Thus, it’s struck down as unconstitutional," a Bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said.

The top court directed the Centre to constitute a National Tribunals Commission in three months.

The Bench expressed displeasure over the Central government not following the top court’s judgments on functioning of tribunals.

"We must express our displeasure at how the Union of India has chosen not to follow directions issued and instead of following the principle on independence and functioning of tribunals...it has re-enacted the same provisions with minor tweaks. There is already pendency of cases and such cases consume valuable judicial time and the government must exercise their power with due regards to judicial precedents so that judicial time is used in dispensing justice," the Bench said.

The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 -- which replaced the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 -- abolished certain appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, and amended various terms related to the appointment and tenure of judicial and other members of various tribunals.

Pronouncing the verdict, CJI Gavai said the Act amounted to "legislative overruling" of binding judgments without curing any defects.

The Bench ordered that until Parliament enacted a new Act giving effect to the directions in the top court’s judgments, the directions given in the previous Madras Bar Association cases will continue to operate.

The judgment came on a petition filed in 2021 by the Madras Bar Association challenging the 2021 Act for violating the top court’s previous judgments which ruled that Tribunal members should have at least a five-year tenure, and lawyers with minimum 10-year experience at the Bar must be considered eligible for appointment.

The top court directed that the members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal shall continue till 62 years, and the Chairperson/President shall continue till 65 years of age.

It also ruled that the appointments made before the commencement of the 2021 Act shall be governed by its earlier judgments in Madras Bar Association cases, and not under the truncated tenure under the 2021 Act.

It said dealing with the backlog of cases was not the sole responsibility of the judiciary, and the onus must be shared by the other arms of the government.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court had on November 6 taken strong exception to the Centre seeking adjournment of the hearing on petitions challenging the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, saying it was “very unfair to the court”.