E-Paper
SC junks parts of tribunal law, cites ‘override’
Reviving a long-pending institutional reform, the court also directed the Union government to establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months as “an essential structural safeguard” to ensure transparent appointments, uniform administration and independence from executive influence
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down multiple provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, holding that Parliament had effectively resurrected statutory provisions earlier invalidated by the court and thereby committed an impermissible act of “legislative override”, in a sweeping reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and judicial independence.
It also sought the creation of a National Tribunals Commission to appoint people to tribunals.
The provisions struck down included the four-year tenure for tribunal members and the minimum entry age of 50.
Delivering a detailed and strongly reasoned judgment, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that the 2021 law “merely repackaged” what was struck down in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-V) case in July 2021, without curing any constitutional defects identified earlier.
“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,” declared the bench while reading out the operative portion.
Reviving a long-pending institutional reform, the court also directed the Union government to establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months as “an essential structural safeguard” to ensure transparent appointments, uniform administration and independence from executive influence. The bench emphasised that piecemeal reforms could not cure systemic deficiencies that have the tribunal system for decades.
The court’s 137-page judgment underscored that India’s constitutional framework does not recognise parliamentary supremacy in the British sense. “The Indian Constitution subscribes to constitutional supremacy,” said the court, adding that once judicial pronouncements identify constitutional defects and lay down binding directions, Parliament cannot simply re-enact the same provisions under a new label.
“Merely restating or repackaging an invalidated provision does not amount to curing the defect,” noted the bench, rejecting Attorney General R Venkatarmani’s argument that Parliament has wide latitude to legislate as it deemed fit.
A meticulous comparison of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021 (struck down earlier), and the subsequent Act, revealed that Parliament “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 those of equivalent civil servants. These very measures, the bench pointed out, had already been held arbitrary, violative of judicial independence, and contrary to Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution.
“Merely shifting the same content into Sections 3, 5 and 7 of a stand-alone statute (2021 Act) using a non obstante clause cannot cure the constitutional defects. It consciously defies binding judicial directions,” the Court said, adding that the Centre’s defence before it was also “a verbatim reprise of arguments earlier rejected.”
The bench also expressed “strong displeasure” with the Union government’s repeated refusal to implement judicial directions safeguarding tribunal independence. “We must express our disapproval of the manner in which the Union of India has repeatedly chosen to not accept the directions of this Court on the very issues that have already been conclusively settled through a series of judgments. It is indeed unfortunate that instead of giving effect to the well-established principles laid down by this Court on the question of the independence and functioning of tribunals, the legislature has chosen to re-enact or reintroduce provisions that reopen the same constitutional debates under different enactments and rules,” it held.
“Respect for settled law is essential for good governance as well as judicial discipline,” said the bench, warning that legislative attempts to nullify or circumvent binding judgments “strike at the core of the constitutional arrangement.” Such recurrence, the court noted, wastes valuable judicial time in a system struggling with staggering pendency and diverts attention from issues of pressing public and constitutional importance.
Reiterating that structural principles such as judicial independence and separation of powers are not “abstract ideals” but enforceable constitutional mandates, the court held that norms laid down in MBA-IV and MBA-V -- two cases involving the Madras Bar Association in 2020 and 2021 -- relating to tenure, age limits, selection processes, and independence from executive control, represent binding constitutional standards. “They are not judicial preferences. They are constitutional requirements derived from Articles 323-A, 323-B, and the doctrine of separation of powers,” the judgment said.
The court also clarified that members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) appointed through the 11 September 2021 order would be governed by the pre-2021 statute and rules. Further, all appointments whose selection or recommendation was completed before the 2021 Act, but for whom formal appointment notifications were issued after the Act came into force, would also stand protected. Their tenure and service conditions, it held, would revert to the standards set out in MBA-IV (2020) and MBA-V (2021).
The bench highlighted that stability of tenure is integral to judicial independence and cannot be subjected to arbitrary legislative changes. Though the Union did not expressly offer protection in the present case, the court noted that similar assurances had been given in earlier hearings and must continue to hold.
The judgment invoked the warnings sounded by Dr BR Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly debates, particularly that the form of administration could be made inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution without altering its text. The bench underlined that the “repeated re-enactment of the same provisions struck down earlier” illustrated exactly the danger Ambedkar had cautioned against.
The present verdict comes nearly four years after the court began hearing the latest round of petitions led by the Madras Bar Association challenging the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. On November 11, when the matter was reserved, the bench had questioned the logic of fixing a uniform four-year tenure across all tribunals and raising the entry age to 50, warning that such provisions deterred competent lawyers from joining and undermined institutional independence.
Senior advocates Arvind Datar and CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for MBA and leading the batch petitioners, argued that the 2021 Act was a “repackaged version” of the invalidated ordinance and that the truncated tenure had already dissuaded bright lawyers from the bar. Senior counsel Sidharth Luthra, PS Patwalia, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sanjay Jain and Puneet Mittal, among others, also appeared in the matter assailing the 2021 law.
Defending the Act, AG Venkataramani argued that the government intended “important reforms” in the tribunal system and that Parliament’s choices reflected legislative wisdom. The court, however, firmly rejected this claim, reiterating that legislative discretion cannot be exercised in derogation of constitutional principles or in defiance of judicial rulings.
It declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional and reiterated that, until Parliament enacts a law that faithfully adheres to constitutional safeguards and the standards laid down in previous judgments, the principles of MBA-IV and MBA-V would remain the governing framework for all tribunals in India.
