Top Court Reserves Verdict On Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Law

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021.

The 2021 Act abolishes certain appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, and amends various terms related to the appointment and tenure of judicial and other members of various tribunals.

The pleas challenged the 2021 law as contrary to the previous judgments of the top court which held that tribunal members should have at least a five-year tenure and lawyers with a minimum 10-year experience must be considered eligible.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran reserved the judgment after Attorney General R Venkataramani concluded his submissions, urging the bench that the law has been made by Parliament after a long gestation period and let the statute be allowed to hold the field.

The top court commenced the final hearing in the case on October 16 and heard a battery of senior lawyers, including senior advocates Arvind Datar, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sachit Jolly and Porus F Kaka.

The attorney general said the intention was to bring uniformity in the selection processes.

"Please do not get stuck to the proposition that you are bound by MBA III or IV (earlier judgments). They are only one part, one chapter, in the entire story of how it has evolved…," he said.

Datar, appearing for lead petitioner Madras Bar Association, made the rejoinder submissions and said there were certain provisions of the Act was contrary to previous judgments.

He assailed the minimum age requirement of 50 years to be Tribunal members and the search-cum-selection committee mandating the recommendation of two persons for the post of chairperson.

He also opposed the provisions which provide for a four-year tenure for a Tribunal's member/ chairperson.

He also said that the provision of having two names for recommendation for the post of chairperson should not be there.

On November 10, the bench asked how the Centre can bring the same Tribunals Reforms law, whose several provisions were quashed by it earlier, with some minor changes and that too without taking away the basis of the judgment.

"The issue is how Parliament can enact the same law (which was set aside) with some minor changes here and there. You cannot enact the same law," the CJI observed when the attorney general urged the bench that Parliament is not precluded from enacting a law based on its experience.

The attorney general defended the legislation, asserting that it was the result of "detailed deliberations" within the government and not "a figment of imagination".

"Parliament has applied its mind to the issues of accountability, trust and efficiency," he said.

Venkataramani said that the 2021 Act represents a balance between judicial independence and administrative efficiency, and that Parliament is within its powers to legislate on the framework governing tribunals.

The top law officer maintained that executive control over appointments, as structured under the Act, was not excessive.

On the issue of short tenure, the law officer said that the Act's provision for a five-year tenure with a single reappointment addressed the Supreme Court's earlier concerns in Roger Mathew (2019), which had criticised short tenures as a deterrent to attracting competent professionals.

"If five years is recognised as a reasonable period and comes with a provision for one reappointment, that would be a good practice to follow," he said.

Venkataramani added that the Act's framework prevents indefinite extensions while still encouraging experienced advocates to join tribunals.

The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 replaced the earlier Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which had drawn similar constitutional challenges.

The top court had struck down the provision of the ordinance that reduced the tenure of Tribunal members and chairpersons to four years, noting that a short term of office could encourage executive influence over the judiciary.

It had held that the tenure must be five years to ensure security of service, with a maximum age of 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members.

The bench had also struck down the minimum age of 50 for appointments to tribunals.

It stressed the need to induct younger members to ensure the judiciary remains robust and vibrant, stating that a minimum of 10 years of practice should be a sufficient qualification for judicial members, similar to what is required for high court judges.

The verdict had also rejected the government's power to make appointments from a panel of two names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

The ordinance was promulgated in April 2021.

After the top court verdict, the government in August introduced and passed the Tribunals Reforms Act with provisions almost identical to those that were struck down.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)