Why in the 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.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Tribunal Reforms (Background, Reforms Act 2021, Supreme Court’s Core Findings, Key Provisions Struck Down, Significance, Challenges, etc.)

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 filed by the Madras Bar Association and Jairam Ramesh 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.