Supreme Court Hears Tribunal Reforms Act Case

Exam-Focused Notes on Supreme Court Hearing Regarding Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

1. Judicial-Constitutional Context:

   • The Supreme Court of India is hearing petitions challenging the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
   • Key constitutional issues include the separation of powers and judicial independence.
   • The Act has been challenged for allegedly undermining a prior Supreme Court judgment by re-enacting provisions declared unconstitutional.

2. Background of the Issue:

   • Origin of disputes dates back to 2017 with the Finance Act, empowering the Centre to frame rules for tribunals.
   • Previously, the Rojer Mathew case (2019) saw a Constitution bench strike down government rules purported to undermine judicial independence.
   • In 2020, another set of rules were challenged; the Supreme Court urged modifications, including a minimum five-year tenure for tribunal members to avoid executive pressure.

3. Key Provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021:

   • Fixed term of tribunal members at four years.
   • Minimum age for appointment set at 50 years.
   • The Madras Bar Association (MBA) argues these provisions violate the independence of the judiciary as per prior judicial verdicts.

4. Legal Arguments:

   • Petitioners assert the four-year tenure leads to insecurity among tribunal members, potentially subjecting them to executive influence.
   • Opposition to 50-year minimum age is based on the arbitrary exclusion of younger, capable lawyers, questioning consistency with judicial appointments where younger candidates can be appointed.
   • The Union government defends the provisions as policy decisions within Parliament's domain, claiming the four-year term offers adequate security combined with the potential for reappointment.

5. Judicial Responses:

   • CJI BR Gavai voiced concern over government requests for adjournments, indicating frustration with delays in the proceedings and suggesting possible ulterior motives.
   • The Supreme Court's remarks imply an ongoing tension between legislative actions and judicial oversight.

6. Impact on Tribunal Functionality:

   • Data cited from December 2022 indicates significant vacancies in key tribunals due to delays in appointments:
     • National Company Law Tribunal: 24 vacancies (sanctioned strength: 32).
     • Armed Forces Tribunal: 24 vacancies (sanctioned strength: 34).
     • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: 18 out of 63 posts vacant.
     • Railway Claims Tribunal: All vice chairman roles vacant, 16 out of 20 judicial member posts vacant.
     • Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Courts: 13 presiding officers against 22 sanctioned positions.

7. Judicial Perspectives on Vacancies:

   • The Supreme Court has previously described the situation as leaving tribunals "virtually defunct," indicating a concern over the functional capacity of these adjudicative bodies and their implications for justice delivery.

8. Constitutional Articles and Framework:

   • Separation of Powers principle emphasized under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Right to Life), and relevant provisions guiding judicial independence.

9. Future Considerations:

   • Ongoing legal assessment and debates regarding the balance of power between the judiciary and legislature and the underlying principles of an independent judiciary within the framework of India’s Constitution.