In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, deeming them unconstitutional and criticizing the government's repeated attempts to undermine the independence of tribunals. The bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, asserted that the Act reintroduced provisions previously struck down, with only minor adjustments, thereby violating the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence.
The court found that the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, was a near replica of a previously struck-down ordinance, and therefore in contravention of earlier judgments. The Supreme Court stated that the government had enacted the 2021 Act, disregarding pronouncements on maintaining independence and transparency in the constitution, composition, service conditions, and functioning of tribunals. The bench also expressed disapproval of the central government's repeated attempts to override the Supreme Court's rulings, which were designed to protect the judicial independence of tribunals that adjudicate disputes relating to taxation, the environment, electricity, telecommunications, and real estate.
The Supreme Court specifically struck down Sections 3, 5, and 7 of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. These sections pertained to the minimum age for appointment, the four-year tenure, and the procedure for Search-cum-Selection Committees (SCSC). The court restored earlier directives regarding a five-year tenure and the eligibility of advocates with 10 years of practice, without the 50-year age bar. The recommendation of a single name by the SCSC will also continue to govern tribunal appointments.
CJI Gavai, writing the judgment, stated that the provisions of the Act could not be sustained as they violated the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. The court emphasized that the Act directly contradicted binding judicial pronouncements that have consistently clarified the standards governing the appointment, tenure, and functioning of tribunal members. The Supreme Court also noted that the Act, which aimed to bring uniformity in tenure and service conditions of all tribunal members, undermined the constitutional requirements of independence and impartiality of tribunals by enabling the executive to exercise control over them.
The Supreme Court criticized the government for attempting to circumvent earlier rulings by enacting a law that had "cosmetically changed a few provisions" of the annulled law. The bench stated that the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, was merely "old wine in a new bottle". The verdict implies that, until a new law is enacted, the service conditions of tribunal presidents and members will be governed by their parent Acts. For example, the ITAT Act will govern service conditions of ITAT president and members.
The court also addressed the backlog of cases, stating that dealing with it is not the sole responsibility of the judiciary and that the onus must be shared by other branches of the government. Furthermore, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunals Commission to ensure independence, transparency, and uniformity in tribunal administration. This commission must be established within four months and operate free of executive control.
