TAKING STRONG EXCEPTION to the Union government for reenacting tribunal law with only marginal alterations of the provisions earlier invalidated by it, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 concerning the appointment and tenure of tribunal members, observing that the Centre had effectively brought back what had already been quashed in previous rulings.
Striking down the provisions relating to the appointment of the tribunal members and their tenure, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, heading the bench also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran, pronouncing the judgment, said, “Therefore, the provisions of the Impugned Act cannot be sustained. They violate the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence, which are firmly embedded in the text, structure, and spirit of the Constitution.”
The judgment said that the “principles of separation of powers and judicial independence are not vague, free-floating ideals. They are structural pillars of our constitutional order and integral components of constitutionalism worldwide.”
Justice Vinod Chandran, in a separate observation, noted, “I respectfully concur with the reasoning and directions. The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 is a replica of the struck down Ordinance; old wine in a new bottle, the wine whets not the judicial palette, but the bottle merely dazzles.”
Stating that the doctrine of separation of powers is not merely philosophical, the judgment reads, “It underwrites the very distribution of authority among the three branches of government. It is reflected in Articles 32, 136, 141, 226, and 227 of the Constitution, which vest the judiciary with the power to interpret the law, enforce fundamental rights, and supervise subordinate courts and tribunals.”
“Instead of curing the defects identified by this Court, the Impugned Act merely reproduces, in slightly altered form, the very provisions earlier struck down”, noted Chief Justice Gavai, further underlining that “These amounts to a legislative override in the strictest sense: an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities.”
In an apparent indictment of the central government, the judgment authored by Chief Justice Gavai said, “Such an approach is impermissible under our constitutional scheme. Because the Impugned Act fails to remove the defects identified in prior judgments and instead reenacts them under a new label, it falls afoul of the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. Accordingly, the impugned provisions are struck down as unconstitutional.”
Protecting the appointment and tenure of the existing chairpersons and the members of the tribunals, the judgment noted that in the earlier Madras Bar Association IV (2021) and V (2022) matters, the Attorney General for India had expressly assured the Court that the appointments of Members and Chairpersons made prior to the enactment of the impugned framework would stand protected and no such assurance has been offered in the present proceedings, the judgment.
Stating that the underlying principle remains the same, the judgment said, “Stability of tenure and protection of vested rights are essential components of judicial independence, and the Court’s earlier directions on this subject cannot be lightly departed from.”
The judgment stated that the earlier judgments in Madras Bar Association IV and V represent the binding constitutional standards necessary to preserve judicial independence and to ensure that tribunals function as effective and impartial adjudicatory bodies. Accordingly, they shall operate as the controlling framework.
Having underscored the necessity of preserving the judicial independence and to ensure that tribunals function as effective and impartial adjudicatory bodies, the judgment said, “We direct that unless the constitutional concerns repeatedly highlighted by this Court in the series of tribunal related judgments are fully addressed and cured, and unless Parliament enacts an appropriate legislation that faithfully gives effect to those principles, the principles and directions laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V) shall continue to govern all matters relating to the appointment, qualifications, tenure, service conditions, and allied aspects concerning tribunal members and chairpersons.”
The Court reiterated that the Union executive has a constitutional duty—repeatedly emphasised in earlier judgments—to constitute a National Tribunals Commission, a structural safeguard deemed essential for ensuring the independence, transparency and uniform functioning of tribunals nationwide, given that ad hoc or piecemeal measures have failed to address longstanding systemic flaws.
Stating that the judicial system is already burdened with a staggering pendency across the Supreme Court, High Courts, and district courts, the judgment said that the ‘continued recurrence of such issues consumes valuable judicial time that could otherwise be devoted to adjudicating matters of pressing public and constitutional importance. The responsibility of reducing pendency in courts does not rest only on the judiciary. It is a shared institutional duty.”
Granting the Centre four months to establish the body, the Court directed that the proposed commission must strictly follow the principles previously laid down, including independence from executive influence, incorporation of professional expertise, transparent appointment and administrative processes, and robust oversight mechanisms capable of restoring public confidence in the tribunal system.
Why was the Act under challenge?
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 was challenged by the Madras Bar Association, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, and several other petitioners. The petitioners questioned, among other things, the Act’s prescription of a shortened tenure for tribunal members and its requirement that candidates must be at least 50 years old—an age bar the Court had already invalidated in its 2021 ruling.
They further assailed the structure of the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), arguing that it vested disproportionate control in the Union government, thereby compromising judicial independence. Another provision under challenge was the mandate that the SCSC submit a panel of two names for each post, rather than a single unanimous recommendation.
