The Union government on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it is likely to introduce a fresh law governing the tenure and service conditions of tribunal chairpersons and members during the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament, nearly eight months after the top court struck down key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, including the four-year tenure for members and the minimum entry age of 50.
Attorney General R Venkataramani made the submission before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the functioning of central tribunals and the continuation of members whose tenures are expiring.
Appearing for the Centre, Venkataramani said the government was contemplating introduction of a new Tribunal Reforms Bill during the current session of Parliament. “A new bill is in the offing. We are in the final stages. The tribunal reforms bill...we will try to push this during this session,” he said.
The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, however, expressed surprise, observing that no such legislation appeared in the notified legislative agenda for the ongoing session.
“We have not seen this (Bill) in the agenda of the current session,” the bench told the Attorney General.
Responding, Venkataramani said the proposed legislation was nonetheless likely to be introduced during the session.
The matter arises from a batch of petitions led by the Revenue Bar Association and the CAT Bar Association concerning the operational continuity of tribunals, extension of tenure of retiring members and implementation of structural reforms ordered by the Supreme Court.
Earlier this year, while dealing with the imminent retirement of several tribunal members, the Centre had informed the court that around 21 members were due to retire, raising concerns that multiple tribunal benches could become non-functional unless interim arrangements were made.
Accepting the government’s request, the Supreme Court had, on March 9, permitted extension of the tenure of chairpersons and members of tribunals until September 8, 2026, or till they attained the maximum age prescribed under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, whichever was earlier. The court subsequently clarified on May 19 that the same arrangement would apply across all tribunals where the tenure of any chairperson, president, presiding officer or member expired before September 8, 2026, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
During those hearings, the Attorney General had assured the court that the government was working on an alternative legislative framework consistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions and intended to introduce the legislation during the Monsoon session. The court had agreed to periodically monitor the progress of the proposed law while ensuring that tribunal functioning was not disrupted in the interim.
The proposed legislation assumes significance in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s November 19, 2025 judgment striking down several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. A Bench led by the then Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai had held that Parliament had effectively reenacted provisions previously invalidated by the court, amounting to an impermissible “legislative override”. The court held that the 2021 law “merely repackaged” what had been struck down in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-V) case in July 2021, without curing any constitutional defects identified earlier.
The judgment declared unconstitutional provisions prescribing a uniform four-year tenure for tribunal members, a minimum entry age of 50 years, and aspects of the appointment process, holding that they undermined judicial independence and violated settled constitutional principles.
A comparison of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021 (struck down earlier), and the subsequent Act, the court underlined at the time, revealed that Parliament had “verbatim repeated” several provisions, including the minimum age of 50 for appointments, the uniform four-year tenure with upper age caps of 70 and 67, the directive that search-cum-selection committees forward a panel of two names for every vacancy, and the linking of allowances and benefits to equivalent civil servants.
In its judgment, the court also directed the Union government to establish a National Tribunals Commission as an institutional safeguard to ensure independent appointments and administration of tribunals.
The court had held that until Parliament enacted a fresh law conforming to constitutional requirements and previous judicial pronouncements, the principles laid down in the Madras Bar Association decisions in 2020 and 2021 would continue to govern appointments, tenure and service conditions of tribunal members.