The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure at the Centre’s last-minute request to defer the hearing on a batch of petitions, including one filed by the Madras Bar Association, that challenge the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021.
CJI Gavai: “Very Unfair to the Court”
A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai took sharp exception to the Centre’s request for adjournment, made through Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who cited Attorney General R. Venkataramani’s international arbitration commitments as the reason for seeking a delay.
“Very unfair to the court,” remarked the CJI, noting that the Attorney General had already been accommodated multiple times. “We have accommodated him twice. This is not fair to the court,” he said. The visibly displeased bench also questioned why another law officer could not argue in the Attorney General’s absence.
“You have a battery of competent ASGs. When we were in the High Court, we gave up other briefs for part-heard matters,” the CJI observed, adding that the court had deliberately kept its Friday schedule clear to conclude arguments and prepare its judgment over the weekend.
When Bhati suggested taking up the matter on Monday, the CJI retorted, “When do we write the judgment then? Every day we are told he’s busy with arbitration. At the last moment, you come with an application to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench!”
Bench Warns: “If He Does Not Come, We Will Close the Matter”
Ultimately, the bench agreed to hear senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioner Madras Bar Association, on Friday, and accommodate the Attorney General’s submissions on Monday. “If he does not come, we will close the matter,” the CJI warned.
The bench, which also comprises Justice K. Viond Chandran, had already heard final arguments from the petitioners. It had earlier criticised the Union for seeking, at the “fag end” of the hearing, to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution Bench—an application the court described as a tactic to delay proceedings.
“You (Attorney General) did not raise these objections earlier and sought adjournment on personal grounds. You cannot raise these objections after arguing fully on merits… we do not expect the Union to indulge in such tactics,” the CJI said, adding that “it seems the Centre wanted to avoid the present bench.”
The Challenge to the 2021 Tribunal Reforms Act
The petitions challenge the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, which abolished several appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, and altered provisions relating to the appointment, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar reminded the court that in July 2021, the apex court had struck down similar provisions in the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, finding them violative of the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers.
Despite that ruling, Parliament passed the Tribunal Reforms Act in August 2021, “verbatim” reproducing the provisions that had been invalidated, Datar said. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that tribunal chairpersons must have a tenure of at least five years (with a retirement age of 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members) and struck down the requirement of a minimum age of 50 for appointments, holding that it stifled judicial diversity and vibrancy.
It had also invalidated the Centre’s power to select candidates from a shortlist of two names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, reaffirming that judicial independence demands adequate safeguards against executive interference.
The Supreme Court began the final hearing on October 16, 2025, on petitions filed by multiple bar associations challenging the Act’s constitutionality. The ongoing proceedings are seen as pivotal in determining the scope of judicial independence and the limits of executive control over tribunal administration.
The hearing will resume on Friday with Datar’s submissions, followed by the Attorney General’s final arguments—if he appears—on Monday.
