Sitting inside Court No.1 this morning, one could sense a certain déjà vu running across the bench. The Supreme Court was once again examining the legality of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021-an issue that has returned to the courtroom multiple times over the last decade. “We have lived this scene too often,” a judge remarked informally, as the hearing opened, reflecting the Court’s visible fatigue with repeated executive attempts to dilute judicial independence.
Background
The petitions, led by the Madras Bar Association, challenge several provisions of the 2021 Act dealing with the appointment, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members. According to the petitioners, Parliament has reintroduced the very defects that the Court had struck down in earlier cases-from Sampath Kumar to the long chain of Madras Bar Association judgments.
Delhi High Court Orders Permanent Ban on Fake YouTube Channel Impersonating TV Today
Minimum age limits, short four-year tenures, and excessive executive power in the Search-cum-Selection Committee were at the heart of their grievance. Senior lawyers argued that these provisions “directly compromise judicial independence” and violate Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations
As arguments progressed, the bench repeatedly referred to its earlier decisions, almost as if reminding the government of a constitutional record that cannot be erased. The Chief Justice noted, with a hint of frustration, that Parliament “cannot undo the protection of judicial independence merely by reshuffling language.”
At one point, the bench observed, “This Court has clarified again and again-tribunals performing judicial functions must be insulated from executive influence. Why then do these provisions return?”
The judges also discussed the disturbing trend of tribunals being shifted under executive ministries, often the very litigants appearing before them. “This is plainly inconsistent with the rule of law,” the bench commented, adding that independence is not merely about perception but actual structural protection.
Several clauses-especially Section 3 on appointments and Section 5 on tenure-came under sharp scrutiny. The Court hinted that a four-year term is “too short to build expertise” and risks making tribunals post-retirement stops instead of robust judicial institutions.
Supreme Court Refuses to Cut 24% Interest in High-Risk Hotel Loan Case, Citing Borrower’s Repeated
Decision
In its order, the Court held that several provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 fail to meet constitutional standards. It reiterated that:
- The Search-cum-Selection Committees must ensure judicial dominance, not executive control.
- Short tenures undermine independence; members must have a minimum five-year term.
- The government cannot prescribe eligibility conditions in a manner that contradicts binding judicial precedent.
- Tribunal members’ service conditions must be protected from executive interference.
With these findings, the Supreme Court struck down the offending provisions and directed the Union Government to amend the law in line with earlier judgments. The Court ended the order by reminding all branches of government that “constitutional boundaries are not optional; they are mandatory.”
Case Title: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India
Issue: Challenge to constitutionality of Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021