Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act

Tribunal Reforms Latest News

• The Supreme Court has struck down multiple provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, ruling that they violate the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers. 
• The Court also directed the Union Government to establish the long-pending National Tribunal Commission within four months to ensure transparency and independence in tribunal appointments and administration. 

Overview of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

• The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 sought to restructure the functioning of tribunals, alter appointment procedures, and allow the government a greater say in fixing tenure, salary, service conditions, and administrative control over tribunal members.
• Key provisions included:
  • Minimum age of 50 years for appointment of tribunal members,
  • A four-year tenure, which could be renewed,
  • A search-cum-selection committee that included two central government secretaries, whose ministries often appear as litigants before tribunals,
  • Powers given to the Centre to frame rules regarding appointments and service conditions.
• These provisions were previously challenged and struck down in a 2021 judgment, yet were reintroduced with minor tweaks in the new legislation.

‹ ›

Supreme Court’s Core Findings

• The Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the 2021 Act was an attempt to “repackage” the very provisions earlier invalidated. 
• The Court noted that Parliament cannot circumvent judicial directions by re-enacting an unconstitutional provision in slightly modified form. The Court anchored its reasoning in three pillars:
• Judicial Independence
  • Tribunals discharge judicial functions, and executive dominance over appointments undermines impartiality. The Court reiterated that executive involvement must be minimal, especially as the government is a litigant in most tribunal cases.
• Separation of Powers
  • Any law affecting the structure or functioning of the judiciary must respect the constitutional limits placed on legislative power. Parliament cannot “override” or “contradict” judicial pronouncements.
• Constitutional Supremacy
  • The Bench emphasised that the Constitution, not Parliament or the executive, is supreme, and judicial review is a basic feature safeguarding constitutionalism.
• “The Constitution is what the Court says it is, Parliament cannot merely restate or repackage the invalidated provision,” the Court observed. 
• The Court found the 2021 Act to be a “legislative override” that consciously defied earlier judgments relating to tribunal autonomy.

Key Provisions Struck Down

• The Supreme Court invalidated provisions that:
  • Allowed the Centre to control tenure and age limits of tribunal members,
  • Included government secretaries on the selection committee,
  • Limited tenure to four years, undermining institutional stability,
  • Granted excessive rule-making powers to the executive over tribunals.
• These provisions collectively weakened tribunal independence by giving the government disproportionate control over adjudicatory bodies.

Direction to Establish National Tribunal Commission

• The Court reiterated its earlier order to create a National Tribunal Commission (NTC), an independent body envisioned to:
  • Oversee the appointments of tribunal members,
  • Regulate service conditions,
  • Ensure institutional autonomy,
  • Oversee administration and infrastructure,
  • Standardise functioning of tribunals across India.
• The Court stressed that the NTC is an “essential structural safeguard”, especially given the government’s repeated attempts to influence tribunal design. 

Issues with the 2021 Act Highlighted by Petitioners

• The petitions argued that the Act:
  • Attempted a “sly revival” of provisions already struck down,
  • Allowed government dominance over tribunals, where the Centre is often the biggest litigant,
  • Was passed without adequate parliamentary debate,
  • Abolished nine specialised tribunals and transferred their workloads to already overburdened High Courts.
• These arguments were largely accepted by the Supreme Court.

Significance of the Judgment

• The ruling strengthens the architecture of tribunal independence, which has been the subject of multiple landmark decisions since 2010. Its key implications include:
  • Reinforcing judicial checks on legislative overreach,
  • Ensuring tribunals remain neutral adjudicatory bodies,
  • Avoiding conflict of interest arising from executive involvement,
  • Protecting citizens’ access to independent and efficient justice.
• The judgment also sends a strong message to Parliament that non-compliance with constitutional judgments is unacceptable.

Challenges Ahead

• Even as the judgment lays down clear constitutional limits, several challenges remain:
  • Establishing the National Tribunal Commission may require extensive coordination between ministries,
  • High Courts may face increasing burdens until tribunal vacancies are filled through a constitutionally valid process,
  • Ensuring that future amendments align fully with judicial precedent will require strict legislative discipline.
• Nonetheless, the ruling marks a major step toward restoring institutional balance between the three branches of government.

Source: TH | IE