SC strikes down Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, over violation of judicial independence

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, holding that the legislation violates constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran expressed strong displeasure at the Union Government for repeatedly failing to implement binding directions issued in earlier judgments regarding appointments to various tribunals.

The Court noted that the 2021 Act had merely re-enacted provisions previously struck down, without curing defects flagged by the Court in multiple Madras Bar Association (MBA) cases.

Allowing the challenge filed by the Madras Bar Association in 2021, the Court held that the Act amounted to “legislative overruling” of authoritative judicial pronouncements and could not be sustained.

It reiterated that the directions laid down in the earlier MBA judgments, such as a minimum five-year tenure for tribunal members and eligibility for advocates with at least ten years’ experience, would continue to remain in force until Parliament enacts a new law in compliance with judicial directions.

The bench also directed the Union Government to establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months.

It further clarified that appointments made before the 2021 Act will be governed by the MBA-4 and MBA-5 judgments and not by the truncated tenure regime introduced under the struck-down law.

The Court additionally ordered that members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) will continue in service until 62 years of age, with the Chairperson serving until 65. The same age criteria were extended to members and the President of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

The bench emphasised that the 2021 Act’s provisions, such as a four-year tenure, a minimum age requirement of 50 years, and alterations to the functioning of the search-cum-selection committee, were contrary to established judicial mandates, and therefore constitutionally impermissible.