Supreme Court Deliberates on Constitutional Challenge to Tribunals Reforms Act 2021

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021.

The 2021 Act eliminates certain appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, and modifies various terms related to the appointment and tenure of judicial and other members across different tribunals.

Petitioners have contested the 2021 law as contradictory to previous Supreme Court judgments which established that tribunal members should have at least five-year tenures and that lawyers with minimum 10-year experience should be considered eligible.

A bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran reserved judgment after Attorney General R Venkataramani concluded his arguments, urging the court to allow the Parliament-enacted statute to remain in force after its extensive development period.

The Supreme Court began final hearings on October 16, hearing arguments from numerous senior lawyers, including Arvind Datar, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sachit Jolly and Porus F Kaka.

The Attorney General emphasized that the aim was to establish uniformity in selection processes, stating, "Please do not get stuck to the proposition that you are bound by MBA III or IV (earlier judgments). They are only one part, one chapter, in the entire story of how it has evolved…"

Arvind Datar, representing lead petitioner Madras Bar Association, presented counter-arguments highlighting certain provisions of the Act that contradicted previous judicial decisions.

He challenged the minimum age requirement of 50 years for Tribunal members and opposed the search-cum-selection committee's mandate to recommend two persons for chairperson positions. Datar also contested provisions specifying four-year tenures for Tribunal members/chairpersons.

On November 10, the bench questioned how the government could reintroduce essentially the same Tribunals Reforms law whose provisions were previously quashed, with only minor modifications and without addressing the fundamental basis of the earlier judgment.

"The issue is how Parliament can enact the same law (which was set aside) with some minor changes here and there. You cannot enact the same law," the Chief Justice observed when the Attorney General argued that Parliament retained the right to enact legislation based on its experience.

The Attorney General defended the legislation as the result of "detailed deliberations" within the government rather than "a figment of imagination," asserting that "Parliament has applied its mind to the issues of accountability, trust and efficiency."

Venkataramani maintained that the 2021 Act balances judicial independence with administrative efficiency, and that Parliament has legitimate powers to legislate on tribunal frameworks. He argued that executive control over appointments under the Act was not excessive.

Regarding tenure concerns, the law officer explained that the Act's five-year tenure provision with one reappointment option addressed the Supreme Court's concerns expressed in Roger Mathew (2019), which had criticized short tenures as deterrents to attracting qualified professionals.

"If five years is recognised as a reasonable period and comes with a provision for one reappointment, that would be a good practice to follow," he stated, adding that the Act's framework prevents indefinite extensions while encouraging experienced advocates to join tribunals.

The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 replaced the earlier Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which faced similar constitutional challenges.

Previously, the Supreme Court had struck down provisions of the ordinance that reduced tribunal members' and chairpersons' tenure to four years, noting that brief terms could enable executive influence over the judiciary.

The court had ruled that tenures must be five years to ensure service security, with maximum ages of 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members. The bench had also invalidated the minimum age requirement of 50 for tribunal appointments.

The court emphasized the importance of inducting younger members to maintain a robust judiciary, stating that 10 years of practice should suffice as qualification for judicial members, similar to requirements for high court judges.

The previous verdict had also rejected government authority to make appointments from panels of two names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

The ordinance was originally promulgated in April 2021. Following the Supreme Court's verdict, the government introduced and passed the Tribunals Reforms Act in August with provisions nearly identical to those previously struck down.