Supreme Court Questions Centre’s Motives in Tribunal Reforms Act Reference Plea
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Union Government’s request to shift the petitions challenging the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 to a five-judge Constitution Bench, calling out the timing of the plea as “unusual.”
A Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the long-pending Madras Bar Association case regarding the validity of the Act. The judges observed that the Union’s application came after the Bench had already heard the petitioners’ arguments at length, prompting the CJI to ask whether the move was a “tactic to avoid” the current Bench.
The Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani, appearing for the Union Government, objected to the use of the word “tactic,” insisting that the plea was filed in good faith. However, the CJI remarked, “We don’t expect the Union of India to indulge in such a tactic,” emphasising that the timing raised doubts about the intent behind the application.
The Bench made it clear that it would hear the Union’s submissions before deciding whether the case should indeed go to a larger Bench.
Concerns Raised About Tribunal Appointments
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioners, pointed out several irregularities in the appointment process of tribunal members, including disbanding merit lists and filling vacancies from waiting lists. He cited examples from tribunals such as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to highlight how the process had deviated from merit-based selection.
Responding to these points, the Attorney General clarified that tribunal appointments depend on multiple factors. Often, he said, candidates decline offers after being shortlisted, forcing the government to consider others from the waiting list. He added that the Union had never favoured filling posts from the waiting list over the merit list, but practical challenges sometimes arise.
The AG explained, “Many applicants apply for several tribunals at the same time. Some drop out; others accept elsewhere. So, the process has to be flexible. But that does not mean we disregard merit.”
‘Allow the New System to Function’
The Attorney General urged the Court to give the new law some time to operate before judging its effectiveness. He said, “Let the system work. Let the law gain some experience before being criticised. Small issues can be corrected later. But that is not a reason to strike down the law entirely.”
However, Chief Justice Gavai questioned how this argument aligned with the government’s request to transfer the case to a five-judge Bench.
When asked whether the referral plea was meant to delay or avoid the current Bench, the AG denied it, stating that there was no intention to sidestep the Court. He added that the Act was passed after careful discussions and consultations, and minor issues should not lead to it being invalidated.
He said, “Some errors and wrongs might occur, but they can be fixed as the law evolves. It’s not reasonable to dismantle the entire system for that.”
Debate on Age Requirement
The Bench also discussed the controversial minimum age limit of 50 years for appointment as tribunal members or chairpersons under the 2021 Act.
Referring to his own judicial career, CJI Gavai observed that he became a High Court judge at the age of 42, and by the Act’s logic, he would have been ineligible for a tribunal position.
In response, the AG explained that tribunal roles are different from judicial appointments in High Courts and require more specialised experience. “Let’s not equate the two systems,” he said. “Tribunals deal with specific subject matters that often require senior-level professional insight.”
Background of the Case
The Madras Bar Association has been at the forefront of multiple challenges to the Tribunal Reforms Act and related ordinances. The petitioners argue that the Act violates judicial independence and contradicts previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld the autonomy and fair functioning of tribunals.
Earlier hearings had also highlighted issues such as conditions of service, tenure, and independence of tribunal members. Petitioners maintain that repeated ordinances and amendments dilute earlier court directions intended to protect the impartial functioning of these quasi-judicial bodies.
The case is part of a long-standing debate over how tribunals in India should be structured and managed, balancing efficiency with judicial independence.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court has decided to continue hearing the Union Government’s arguments before deciding whether the matter requires reference to a five-judge Bench. The next hearing date will be announced soon.
Until then, the Bench’s remarks serve as a strong reminder that procedural fairness and transparency are crucial in matters involving judicial reforms and appointments.
