The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on the Union government for filing an application at the final stage of hearing, seeking to refer to a larger bench the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021.
A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which had already concluded final arguments by the petitioners, including the Madras Bar Association, said it did not expect the government to move such a request at this stage.
“On the last date, you (Attorney General) did not raise these objections and sought adjournment on personal grounds. You cannot raise these objections after hearing them fully on merits… we do not expect the Union to indulge in such tactics,” the CJI remarked, visibly displeased.
The bench also observed that the move appeared to be an attempt to avoid the present bench, especially since CJI Gavai is set to demit office on November 23.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani clarified that the government was not seeking to delay proceedings and that the preliminary objection was already mentioned in its earlier reply. He urged the court not to “misunderstand” the intent of the application.
However, the CJI warned, “If we reject this application, we will observe that the Union is trying to avoid this bench. We will not hear all this now after we have heard one side on merits.”
Justice Chandran also pulled up the government for raising the issue belatedly: “At least at some stage you should have raised this issue… that too an application for this? You took an adjournment because you wanted to come and argue.”
The CJI told the Attorney General, “Please confine yourself to responding to submissions made by (senior advocate) Arvind Datar. If during arguments we think that reference to a larger bench is needed, we will do it — but we will not do it at the behest of your midnight application.”
Commencing his final arguments, the Attorney General said the government had enacted the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, after “due deliberations” and urged the court to allow the law to “gain experience.”
“The court should not set aside the law,” he submitted, adding that the legislation aimed to streamline appointments and improve efficiency in tribunals. “Merit cannot be sacrificed for selections to take place from the waitlist,” he said.
He argued that the law, having gone through a long gestation period, deserved time to function effectively before being subjected to judicial invalidation.
The Supreme Court had begun the final hearing on October 16 on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the 2021 Act, which abolished certain appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, and altered service conditions for tribunal members.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, arguing for the petitioners, pointed out that in July 2021, the top court had struck down several provisions of the earlier Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021, for undermining judicial independence. Despite this, the government reintroduced identical provisions in the new law passed in August 2021.
The court had earlier ruled that reducing the tenure of tribunal members to four years and fixing a minimum appointment age of 50 violated the principles of judicial independence. It held that the tenure must be at least five years, with upper age limits of 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members, and that a minimum of 10 years’ practice should suffice for eligibility.
The Supreme Court will resume hearing the matter on Friday.
