Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provisions of Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 for Violating Judicial Independence [Read Judgement]

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court explained that Parliament may pass a new law to remove the basis of an earlier judgment, but it cannot bring back provisions that repeat the same defects already identified by the Court. The Bench pointed out that judicial review requires the Court to check whether legislation follows the Constitution.

The writ petition was filed by the Madras Bar Association challenging several provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. The petitioners argued that Parliament had reenacted conditions relating to tribunals that the Supreme Court had already struck down in its earlier judgments in MBA (IV) and MBA (V). They argued that the Act continued the same defects relating to age limits, tenure, and executive control without curing the problems identified earlier.

The Centre argued that Parliament had the authority to pass such legislation and that issues relating to qualifications, age limits, and selection processes were matters of policy.

The matter was heard by a Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai. Before beginning its observations, the Bench reviewed earlier tribunal judgments and the repeated concerns expressed regarding judicial independence.

The court explained that while the judiciary does not frame policy, it must ensure that legislation complies with constitutional limits. It stated:

“While the judiciary cannot dictate policy, it can and must ensure that legislative choices conform to the Constitution. Judicial restraint in law-making does not imply judicial abdication in constitutional adjudication.”

Understand the complete process and tax nuances of GST refunds, Click here

The court observed that separation of powers and judicial independence are core parts of the Constitution. It explained that Articles 32, 136, 141, 226 and 227 show that the judiciary has the authority to interpret the law, enforce fundamental rights, and supervise courts and tribunals.

The court also pointed out that provisions relating to appointment, tenure, and removal of judges protect the judiciary from executive influence.

After striking down the unconstitutional provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the Supreme Court issued clear directions to the Centre.

The court directed that until all constitutional concerns raised in earlier tribunal judgments are fully addressed and cured, the principles laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V) will continue to govern appointments, qualifications, tenure, service conditions and all related matters concerning tribunal members and chairpersons.

The Court observed that these earlier judgments form the binding constitutional framework necessary to preserve judicial independence.

The court also held that the executive has a constitutional obligation to establish a National Tribunals Commission in accordance with the principles earlier laid down by the Court. It explained that creating such a commission is essential to ensure independence, transparency and uniformity in the functioning of tribunals.

The court granted the Union of India four months from the date of the judgment to establish this commission. It stated that the commission must remain free from executive control and have transparent procedures that build public trust.

The court further clarified that the service conditions of Members of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal appointed by orders dated 11 September 2021 and 1 October 2021 will be governed by the old Act and the old Rules.

It also directed that appointments of Members and Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation was completed before the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 came into force will be protected and governed by the parent statutes and earlier conditions of service rather than the truncated tenure in the 2021 Act.

With these directions, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates