‘Very unfair’: SC takes exception as Centre seeks adjournment on hearing of tribunal Act pleas

“It is very unfair to the court,” a Bench led by CJI BR Gavai told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, who made the adjournment request on behalf of the Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani.

“We have accommodated him (AG) twice. This is not fair to the court…If you (the Centre) want to keep it after November 24, you tell us frankly,” said CJI Gavai, who is due to retire on November 23.

The CJI had on Monday said the Centre wanted to avoid his Bench after the Attorney General requested it to refer petitions challenging the Act to a larger Bench, saying it appeared the government wanted to avoid the present Bench.

“If we reject this application by you, we will observe that the Centre is trying to avoid this Bench. We will not hear all this now after we have heard one side on merits,” the CJI had said after Venkataramani made the request.

On Thursday, the ASG requested the Bench to take up the matter on Monday (November 10), saying the Attorney General was busy in an international arbitration.

“When do we write the judgment then? This week also we cannot write the judgment. Every day we are told that he is busy with arbitration, we accommodate him. Then at the last moment, at midnight, you come up with an application to refer it to a Constitution Bench,” the CJI told the ASG.

He asked the ASG, “Why can’t anyone else represent the Union (of India) in the matter, if the AG is not available? You have a battery of competent ASGs.”

As Bhati said it was the Attorney General, who had been appearing in this case, the CJI shot back, “Then he should have been here. Practice of the high court is that if you are on your legs in a matter, the first preference is to the part-heard matter. When we were in the high court, whatever briefs we had, we had to give up for the part-heard.”

The CJI said, “We have the highest respect for the highest constitutional lawyer (AG). But, if this is the manner in which hearings are shunted off...we have not kept any other matter tomorrow (Friday) with a view that we will finish the matter tomorrow and utilise Saturday and Sunday for writing the judgment.”

Finally, the Bench adjourned the hearing to November 10 on the Madras Bar Association’s petition, challenging the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act-2021.

The 2021 Act 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.

The Bench, which has already heard final arguments on behalf of petitioners, including the Madras Bar Association, was on Monday piqued over the fact that the Centre now wanted the matter to be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

“On the last date (of hearing), you (Attorney General) did not raise these objections and you sought adjournment on personal grounds. You cannot raise these objections after hearing them fully on merits…we do not expect the Union of India to indulge in such tactics,” a visibly irked CJI had said.

Urging the Bench not to misunderstand the Centre’s plea for adjudication of the matter by a larger Bench, the Attorney General had said the preliminary objections on this aspect were already part of the reply filed by the Centre.

“No, please do not get this impression. The Act was passed after due deliberations. We are only saying should the Act be just struck down because of these issues? Let it get some time to be stabilised,” Venkataramani had said.