Supreme Court Overturns Key Provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act 2021

Supreme Court's Verdict on the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021

The Supreme Court of India recently made headlines by invalidating several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. This decision was rooted in the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers, which the Court found were compromised by the Act. The ruling also mandated the Union Government to establish the long-awaited National Tribunal Commission within four months, ensuring transparency in tribunal appointments and administration.

Understanding the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 was designed to overhaul tribunal operations, alter appointment processes, and give the government more influence over tenure, salary, service conditions, and administrative control of tribunal members. Some of the Act's key features included:

• Setting a minimum age of 50 years for tribunal member appointments.
• Establishing a renewable four-year tenure.
• Creation of a search-cum-selection committee including two central government secretaries, whose ministries often litigate before tribunals.
• Empowering the Centre to make rules concerning appointments and service conditions.

These provisions were challenged and struck down previously, yet reappeared with minor adjustments in the 2021 legislation.

Supreme Court's Core Findings

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, viewed the 2021 Act as a “repackaging” of previously invalidated provisions. The Court emphasized that Parliament cannot sidestep judicial directives by re-enacting unconstitutional provisions in a modified form. The Court’s judgment centered on three foundational principles:

Given that tribunals serve judicial functions, executive control over appointments jeopardizes impartiality. The Court reaffirmed that executive involvement should be minimal, especially since the government is frequently a litigant in tribunal cases.

Laws affecting the judiciary's structure or function must adhere to constitutional boundaries. Parliament cannot “override” or “contradict” judicial decisions.

The Constitution is paramount, not Parliament or the executive, and judicial review safeguards constitutionalism. The Court asserted, “The Constitution is what the Court says it is,” and Parliament cannot merely restate or repackage invalidated provisions.

Provisions Struck Down by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court nullified provisions that:

• Allowed the Centre to control tribunal members' tenure and age limits.
• Included government secretaries on the selection committee.
• Limited tenure to four years, compromising Stability.
• Granted excessive rule-making powers to the executive over tribunals.

These provisions collectively compromised tribunal independence by granting the government undue control over adjudicatory bodies.

Establishment of the National Tribunal Commission

The Court reiterated its earlier directive to form a National Tribunal Commission (NTC), a body intended to:

• Oversee tribunal member appointments.
• Regulate service conditions.
• Ensure institutional autonomy.
• Oversee administration and infrastructure.
• Standardize tribunal functions across India.

The NTC is considered an "essential structural safeguard," especially in light of the government’s repeated attempts to influence tribunal design.

Criticisms of the 2021 Act

Petitioners argued that the Act:

• Attempted a “sly revival” of previously struck-down provisions.
• Permitted government dominance over tribunals where the Centre is often a major litigant.
• Was passed without sufficient parliamentary debate.
• Abolished nine specialized tribunals, transferring workloads to already burdened High Courts.

The Supreme Court largely agreed with these contentions.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling fortifies the framework of tribunal independence, a subject of numerous landmark decisions since 2010. Key implications include:

• Reinforcing judicial checks on legislative overreach.
• Ensuring tribunals remain impartial adjudicatory bodies.
• Avoiding conflicts of interest from executive involvement.
• Protecting citizens’ access to independent and efficient justice.

The judgment also conveys a strong message to Parliament that ignoring constitutional judgments is unacceptable.

Future Challenges

While the judgment delineates clear constitutional limits, challenges remain:

• Establishing the National Tribunal Commission will require extensive coordination among ministries.
• High Courts may face increased burdens until tribunal vacancies are filled through a constitutionally valid process.
• Ensuring future amendments fully align with judicial precedents will demand strict legislative discipline.

Nonetheless, the ruling is a significant step toward restoring institutional balance among the three government branches.