In a landmark judgment asserting the supremacy of judicial independence, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 19) struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The apex court declared the legislation unconstitutional, ruling that it amounted to an impermissible “legislative overruling” of previous judgments without rectifying the legal defects identified by the Court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran delivered the verdict, sharply criticizing the Central government for its apparent unwillingness to implement binding judicial directions regarding the appointment and service conditions of tribunal members.
A Case of Legislative Overruling
The controversy centered on the Parliament’s move to re-enact specific provisions that the Supreme Court had already invalidated in earlier decisions. The bench observed that merely enacting a new statute to negate a court judgment, without removing the underlying constitutional defects pointed out in that judgment, violates the core principles of the separation of powers.
The Court held that the 2021 Act was inconsistent with the binding precedents laid down in the Madras Bar Association cases. The bench noted that the deviations in the new Act infringed upon judicial independence, a basic structure of the Constitution.
Key Contentions: Tenure and Eligibility
The challenge to the Act was brought forth in 2021 by the Madras Bar Association, which argued that the new law systematically dismantled the safeguards mandated by the judiciary to ensure the autonomy of tribunals.
The Court highlighted significant discrepancies between the Act and its prior directions:
- Tenure: While the Supreme Court’s earlier judgments mandated a minimum tenure of five years to ensure stability and independence, the 2021 Act reduced this term to four years.
- Minimum Age: The Act introduced a minimum age bar of 50 years for appointments, a restriction the Court found arbitrary and exclusionary towards younger, meritorious candidates.
- Advocates’ Eligibility: The legislation altered the eligibility criteria for advocates, ignoring the judicial requirement that lawyers with a minimum of 10 years of experience should be considered for tribunal posts.
- Selection Process: The Act modified the functioning of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, restricting it to proposing only two names for the post of Chairperson, limiting the scope of selection.
Directives: National Tribunal Commission
Since the statute was held unsustainable, the Supreme Court directed that the framework established in the Madras Bar Association 4 and 5 rulings would govern tribunal appointments and conditions until Parliament enacts a fresh law compliant with constitutional requirements.
In a significant move to institutionalize tribunal administration, the Court issued a mandamus directing the Central government to establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months.
Protection for Existing Members
The judgment provided clarity on the tenure of current members to prevent administrative vacuums:
- ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal): Members shall serve until the age of 62, while the Chairperson is entitled to continue until the age of 65.
- CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal): A similar arrangement applies, with members serving until 62 and the President until 65.
The Court further clarified that all appointments made prior to the enactment of the 2021 Act would be governed by earlier precedents, ensuring that the curtailed terms introduced by the impugned legislation do not retroactively affect serving members.
The bench expressed strong disapproval regarding the Executive’s approach, noting that despite repeated warnings and directions, the continuity and independence of tribunals were being compromised. The verdict underscores that while Parliament has the power to legislate, it cannot do so in a manner that renders judicial adjudication futile or encroaches upon the independence of the judiciary.
