SC strikes down key provisions of Tribunals Reforms Act

In a setback to the Centre, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, relating to the appointment, tenure and service conditions of tribunal members and presiding officers. The court held that “Parliament cannot simply override judicial decision by re-enacting” provisions previously declared unconstitutional with minor tweaks.

Allowing petitions filed by the Madras Bar Association and others, a Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran said the Act violated the principles of “separation of powers and judicial independence” and amounted to “legislative overruling” of binding judgments without addressing any constitutional defects.

The judges expressed strong displeasure at the Centre’s repeated attempts to revive provisions previously held unconstitutional. “It is indeed unfortunate that instead of giving effect to the well-established principles laid down by this court on 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,” the CJI wrote in the judgment.

The Bench directed the Centre to set up a National Tribunals Commission, terming it an essential safeguard to ensure independence, transparency and uniformity in tribunal administration. The Commission must be established within four months and must operate free of “executive control”, the court said.

It also struck down contentious provisions, including the minimum age of 50 years for tribunal appointments and the fixed four-year tenure for members and chairpersons. The mandate requiring the Search-cum-Selection Committee to recommend a panel of two names for each vacancy—seen as giving the executive undue discretion—was also invalidated. “Stability of tenure and protection of vested rights are essential components of judicial independence,” the Bench emphasised.

Justice Chandran, writing a concurring opinion, described the Act, “The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 is a replica of the struck-down Ordinance; old wine in a new bottle, the wine whets not the judicial palette, but the bottle merely dazzle.”

The court ruled that appointments made before the Act came into force would continue to be governed by its earlier judgments in the Madras Bar Association cases. It also directed that members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal shall serve till 62 years, and its Chairperson/President till 65 years.

Stating that clearing the backlog of cases “is not the sole responsibility of the judiciary”, the Bench said the executive must also shoulder its share of the burden.