NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment on Wednesday, the Supreme Court invalidated certain provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, stating that they undermined judicial independence and violated the separation of powers. The court observed that the legislation attempted to override binding judgments without addressing any underlying defects.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran described the contested provisions, particularly those concerning the appointment and tenure of tribunal members, as unconstitutional. “The provisions of the impugned Act cannot be sustained as they violate separation of powers and judicial independence principles. It amounts to legislative overwrite without curing any defects,” the court said.
The judgment directs the Central government to establish a National Tribunals Commission within three months to ensure independent functioning and governance of tribunals. The Bench also expressed its displeasure over the government’s failure to adhere to the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings on tribunal appointments and tenure.
“We must express our displeasure at how the Union of India has chosen not to follow directions issued and instead re-enacted the same provisions with minor tweaks. Such cases consume valuable judicial time, and the government must exercise its powers with due regard to judicial precedents,” the Bench noted.
The 2021 Act had amended terms of appointment and tenure of members across various tribunals, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, and had abolished certain appellate bodies, such as the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal. Petitioners, including the Madras Bar Association, challenged the Act for contravening earlier Supreme Court rulings that tribunal members must have a minimum five-year tenure, and that lawyers with at least ten years’ experience at the Bar should be eligible for appointment.
The court clarified that until a new Act is enacted in line with its directions, previous judgments from the Madras Bar Association case will continue to govern appointments. Specifically, members of ITAT and other tribunals will continue till 62 years of age, with Chairpersons/Presidents serving till 65, and appointments made prior to the 2021 Act will follow earlier rules rather than the truncated tenure under the Act.
Highlighting the broader issue of case backlogs, the Bench observed that addressing pendency is not the judiciary’s sole responsibility, urging other branches of government to share accountability in the administration of justice.
The Supreme Court had earlier expressed irritation at the Centre for seeking adjournments in November 2023, calling it “very unfair to the court,” signaling the urgency of resolving disputes surrounding the 2021 legislation.
This verdict reinforces the principle that legislative attempts cannot override binding judicial decisions without addressing their substantive requirements, reaffirming the independence of tribunals and safeguarding judicial authority.
