'Old Wine in New Bottle': Big SC Setback For Centre in Plea Against Tribunal Reforms Act 2021

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 19) struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 passed by the parliament, calling it "violative of separation of powers, principles of juddicial independence".

"All provisions we struck down has been reintroduced with minor tweaking by the government," it said.The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed displeasure at the Centre for not giving effect to the directions given by the Court in its earlier judgments regarding Tribunal appointments. "This is an unconstitutional attempt to override Supreme Court's past judgment that violated judicial independence," it said.The act was controversial as it had restored various clauses earlier struck down by Supreme Court (regarding tenure of members, minimum age for appointment as members fixed at 50 and search cum selection committee asked to recommend two names out of which govt will choose one), the court observed.The new bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on 2 August, 2021. It was passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 August and by the Rajya Sabha on 9 August. Among other things, the bill provides for a four-year term for tribunal members. It sets the upper age for the chairperson at 70 years and for the other members at 67 years. The minimum age limit for appointments is 50 years.With regard to the minimum age requirement, the Supreme Court which earlier struck down the provision observed, “Fixing a minimum age for recruitment of members as 50 years would act as a deterrent for competent advocates to seek appointment.SC Bench vs Centre During HearingOn November 6 when the matter was fixed for final arguments and AG R Venkataramani was asked to be present and lawyer on behalf of AG said he is not available and asked an adjournment, CJI B R Gavai had questioned if Govt was trying to avoid his bench and was waiting for his retirement on November 23 and did not want him to pronounce the judgment as it was expecting an adverse verdict.AG had later apologised for not being present in court and said a genuine prior commitment and pre-occupation with an important arbitration matter was the reason behind his absence on two days and request for further adjournmentMadras Bar Association’s ArgumentMBA argues that these struck down provisions which were brought back erode judicial independence, violate the separation of powers, and create a legislative override of judicial verdicts.Key ObjectionsThe petitioners contend that the Act contravenes prior Supreme Court rulings by:1. Imposing a 50-year minimum age for appointments.2. Permitting the search-cum-selection committee to recommend two names for chairperson, enabling executive preference.3. Fixing a four-year tenure—shorter than what the apex court had mandated.Further, the MBA alleges arbitrary selection practices:· Candidates on waitlists were preferred over higher-ranked candidates.· Intelligence Bureau reports containing adverse remarks were used to veto candidates without being shared with the selection committee, resulting in what the MBA terms “arbitrary cherry-picking”—a phrase notably used by the apex court itself in 2021 during similar hearings.Why Tribunal Independence MattersTribunals are not merely alternative forums; they handle complex and high-stake disputes in fields such as taxation, company law, the environment, and administrative service matters.The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the independence of these bodies is part of the Constitution’s basic structure.Their sensitivity and the value of matters adjudicated—multi-crore tax disputes, major environmental clearances, service matters involving armed forces personnel—make them a recurring battleground between the executive, which is often the primary litigant, and the judiciary, which must protect their autonomy.Government’s Argument: Efficiency And ControlThe Union government maintains that since tribunals are statutory bodies created by Parliament, they must fall within the executive’s administrative domain. It argues that uniformity, efficiency, transparency, and accountability require greater central control, and that the Tribunals Reforms Act embodies these goals.