Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today reserved its decision in the challenge to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the Madras Bar Association case concerning the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

The Association has challenged the Act as contrary to the previous judgments of the Supreme Court which held that Tribunal members should have at least 5 years tenure, lawyers with minimum 10 years of experience must be considered eligible etc.

Previously, the bench has posed to the Union the reasons behind shaping of the impugned Act.

Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Union, had explained that the intention to bring the impugned act was the need for uniformity in the selections processes of tribunals.

Today, the AG expanded on this argument further, submitting that it is not the case that the precedents of the Apex Court ruled against having a uniform procedure.

"Uniformity is very well received in Rojer Mathew case. Rojer Mathew did not say - do not have uniformity at all, go back to your old dispensations"

He added, "it is not as if uniformity is an anathema to any thought or idea in the whole scheme of things."

The Court on the last hearing also questioned how could the Union pass an Act which was contrary to the past decisions of the Supreme Court.

Notably, in the past decisions of Madras Bar Association III (MBA III) as well as Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court had set aside the provisions limiting the tenure to 4 years, fixing minimum age limit as 10 years, and allowing the search-cum-selection committee to recommend two names for each post, among other provisions. However, these provisions have been re-introduced in the 2021 Act.

The AG also urged the Court to not restrict its view only to the observations in MBA III and MBA IV. According to him the rulings of the past decisions cannot be applied in the rigid sense to the present case.

"Please do not get stuck to the proposition that you are bound by MBA III or IV. They are only one part, one chapter, in the entire story of how it is evolved....neither MBA III nor MBA IV can be called inflexible directions binding on the government."

Sr Advocate Aravind Datar, appearing for the MBA made brief submissions in the rejoinder.

Datar, had mainly argued that the following provisions of the impugned Act are contrary to the previous judgments of the Court -(1) minimum age requirement of 50 years to be Tribunal members; (2) search-cum selection committee mandating the recommendation of two persons for the post of Chairperson; (3) 4 years tenure for a tribunal's member/ chairperson.

Datar also stressed that the provision of having two names for recommendation for the post of Chairperson should not be there. He added that the selection should take place as per the merit list, instead of appointing persons from the waiting list, overlooking candidates within the merit list.

Sr Advocate Sachit Jolly appeared for ITAT Bar Association, Delhi. Sr Advocate Porus F Kaka appeared for ITAT Bar Association, Bombay. Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan also appeared for one the intervenors.

Also Read : 'Can Parliament Reintroduce Provisions Struck Down By Court?' Supreme Court Questions Centre On Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021

Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act | Appointments Being Made From Wait List Ignoring Merit List, Lawyers Tell Supreme Court

'Tactic To Avoid?' : Supreme Court Questions Union's Plea To Refer Tribunal Reforms Act Challenge To 5-Judge Bench

Four-Year Tenure For Tribunal Members Insufficient, Petitioners Tell Supreme Court In Challenge To Tribunal Reforms Act

Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021