Supreme Court Slams Government on Quashed Provisions in Tribunal Law

November 10, 2025

Introduction: Judicial Scrutiny Over the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, questioning whether the reintroduction of previously struck-down provisions amounts to legislative overreach. The Court emphasized that while Parliament has the authority to enact reforms, such changes must respect prior judicial pronouncements.

The case was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, who were responding to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions in the 2021 Act.

Background: The Contested Provisions and Their History

The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 was enacted barely four months after the Supreme Court had struck down similar provisions in the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.

The main points of contention include:

Tenure: The Act prescribes a four-year tenure for tribunal members, with the possibility of reappointment.
Age Limit: It introduces a minimum eligibility age of 50 years for appointment.
Appointment Mechanism: The Act provides for a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), which includes a nominee of the Chief Justice of India with a casting vote.

Petitioners, including the Madras Bar Association and other bar associations, argued that such provisions discourage younger and competent lawyers from joining tribunals, affecting institutional efficiency and independence.

Supreme Court’s Observation: Legislative Overreach and Judicial Authority

During the hearing, CJI Bhushan R. Gavai remarked that “You can do everything except what has been set aside by this court.” The bench questioned whether Parliament could reintroduce provisions previously quashed by the Court merely by altering the language.

The Court expressed concern that such legislative actions could constitute “legislative overreach”, thereby undermining the separation of powers—a fundamental principle of the Constitution enshrined under Article 50, which mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive in public services.

Judicial Precedents: The Basis of the Court’s Concern

The issue of tribunal independence has been the subject of several landmark judgments:

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2020) 6 SCC 157
The Supreme Court struck down provisions relating to short tenure and executive dominance in tribunal appointments, emphasizing the need for judicial independence and security of tenure.
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1
The Court held that any attempt to dilute judicial control over tribunals or reduce their functional independence would be unconstitutional.
Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1
It was reaffirmed that tribunal members must have service conditions comparable to High Court judges to maintain independence and public confidence.

These precedents underline that tenure security and age flexibility are essential for an effective and impartial tribunal system.

Attorney General’s Defence: Legislative Wisdom and Uniformity

Attorney General R. Venkataramani, defending the Centre, argued that the 2021 Act was framed with the intention of bringing uniformity and consistency in the functioning of various tribunals.

He maintained that:

The Act does not violate judicial independence.
The reappointment system ensures accountability rather than insecurity.
The extended retirement age (70 for presiding officers and 67 for members) balances tenure length with experience.

Venkataramani further clarified that the legislation should not be seen as a “courts versus Parliament” conflict but rather as a collaborative effort to enhance tribunal efficiency.

Supreme Court’s Counterpoint: The Question of Rationality

The bench questioned the rationale behind fixing 50 years as the minimum age for appointment when a lawyer with 10 years of practice is eligible to become a High Court judge under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution.

The CJI remarked that such restrictions could discourage talented lawyers in their 40s from joining tribunals. He further emphasized that “permanency of tenure goes to the root of effective functioning of the tribunal,” warning against a system where members constantly face uncertainty regarding reappointment.

Petitioners’ Argument: Judicial Oversight Is Vital for Efficiency

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioners, strongly argued that age, tenure, and selection criteria are not mere policy matters but go to the core of judicial independence.

He asserted that repeated legislative attempts to dilute previous court directives reflect a pattern of confrontation rather than cooperation. Datar warned that an ill-equipped tribunal system would directly impact sectors like:

Taxation and Finance (ITAT, NCLT)
Telecommunications and Infrastructure (TDSAT)
Environmental Regulation (NGT)
Corporate and Insolvency Laws (NCLT and NCLAT)

He concluded that effective tribunals are crucial for India’s economic stability and ease of doing business, making adherence to judicial recommendations imperative.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

Article 50 – Ensures separation of judiciary from the executive.
Article 323A & 323B – Empower Parliament to establish administrative and other tribunals.
Article 141 – Declares that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all authorities.
Article 13(2) – Prohibits the State from making any law that contravenes fundamental rights.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers – A constitutional principle preventing legislative encroachment on judicial functions.

Conclusion: Upholding Judicial Independence in Tribunal Governance

The Supreme Court’s sharp observations signal a renewed judicial vigilance against any legislative attempt to dilute the autonomy of tribunals. The ongoing hearing of the Madras Bar Association petitions could determine the future of tribunal governance and reassert the delicate balance between Parliament’s legislative wisdom and the judiciary’s constitutional authority.

Ultimately, the debate reaffirms that judicial independence is not a privilege of the judiciary but a pillar of democracy, ensuring that citizens’ rights remain protected against arbitrary state action.