In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has struck down several provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, declaring that they violate the principles of judicial independence, separation of powers, and the constitutional mandate laid down in earlier decisions concerning the functioning of tribunals.
Legislative Override and Constitutional Scrutiny
The Court noted that Parliament had reintroduced provisions that were previously invalidated in the Madras Bar Association line of cases, without solving the constitutional inadequacies identified earlier. Such legislative reenactment, without curing foundational defects, is held to be incompatible with the rule of law and the supremacy of judicial precedent.
The Court reaffirmed that the legislature may enact laws within its competence, but it cannot nullify binding judicial pronouncements by simply reproducing removed provisions in a new statute. Doing so was found to undermine the basic structure of the Constitution.
Tenure, Eligibility, and Appointment Concerns
Among the provisions invalidated were those relating to appointment terms, age criteria, and selection procedures for tribunal members. The Act prescribed a four-year tenure and imposed a minimum age requirement of fifty years for appointment. These measures had already been rejected by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments, which held that short tenures and restrictive age requirements discourage competent practitioners from seeking tribunal positions and weaken the institutional stability of these adjudicatory bodies.
The Court also rejected provisions requiring the Selection Committee to forward a panel of two names instead of one. Such a system, the Court held, diluted the independence of the selection process and allowed excessive executive discretion in the final appointment.
Restoration of Previous Norms
As a consequence of the judgment, the Court restored the tenure and service conditions previously upheld in judicial precedent. Tribunal members are now eligible to serve until the age of 62, while presiding officers may serve until 65, unless Parliament enacts a new law consistent with constitutional standards.
Appointments already recommended by duly constituted Selection Committees prior to the Act, but effected afterward, will be governed by the earlier service regime, ensuring continuity and fairness.
Direction to Establish a National Tribunals Commission
In a forward-looking directive, the bench ordered the Union Government to constitute a National Tribunals Commission within a fixed timeline. This permanent supervisory body will aim to oversee appointments, service conditions, administrative requirements, and systemic improvements across all tribunals in the country. The Court stated that tribunal reforms cannot be approached as fragmented legislative responses and require a centralized institutional mechanism free from executive dominance.
Reinforcing Separation of Powers
The judgment marks a strong assertion of the doctrine of separation of powers. Although tribunals are products of statute and may replace the jurisdiction of traditional courts in certain areas, their adjudicatory character requires that they be seperated from executive control. Security of tenure, independent appointments, and transparent service conditions are key in preserving independence and maintaining public confidence in the tribunal system.
Implications
The ruling has the effect of restating the legal framework that existed under prior judicial interpretation and ensures that tribunals continue functioning under standards consistent with constitutional guarantees. Parliament now faces the task of either amending the existing statute or introducing a fresh legislative framework that aligns with the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
What are your thoughts on this ruling?
Does the judgment strike the right balance between legislative competence and judicial independence, or does it tilt too far in favor of judicial supremacy?Comment down below now!