The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, indicating that the Centre’s recent legislative measures on tribunal tenure and eligibility appear to undermine the court’s earlier rulings and constitute a possible “legislative overreach.” The bench emphasized that any reforms aimed at improving the functioning of tribunals must respect the judicial precedents and cannot reintroduce provisions previously struck down.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing petitions filed by the Madras Bar Association and other bar bodies challenging the 2021 Act. The law introduced a four-year tenure for tribunal members, set a minimum eligibility age of 50 years, and allowed re-appointments through a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) that includes a nominee of the Chief Justice of India with a casting vote.

The bench questioned the rationale behind the minimum age and limited tenure, pointing out that tribunals such as ITAT and CESTAT had functioned effectively for decades without complaints. “You can do everything except what has been set aside by this court,” the bench told Attorney General R Venkataramani, who defended the Act. “What is set aside by the court, can it be brought back by changing a few words… Would it not be a case of legislative overreach?”

The court further challenged the justification for the 50-year minimum age, noting that a lawyer with 10 years of experience can be considered for a High Court judgeship. “If a lawyer with 10 years of practice can be appointed as a high court judge, then why not here?” the bench asked. The court also observed that requiring periodic re-appointments could undermine the stability and independence of tribunal members, creating uncertainty over their tenure. “Permanency of tenure goes to the root of effective functioning of the tribunal. There cannot be a sword hanging over a person on whether they will be re-appointed or not,” the bench remarked.

Attorney General Venkataramani argued that the 2021 Act was intended to streamline appointments and create uniform standards across all tribunals. He said the Act balances judicial and legislative oversight, improves accountability, and ensures independence from undue influence. The Centre’s written submissions also noted that the Act raises the retirement age to 70 for presiding officers and 67 for members, while all appointments and reappointments are subjected to the SCSC review.

However, senior advocates Arvind Datar and Ninad Laud, representing the petitioners, countered that age limits, tenure, and selection criteria are not merely policy matters. They contended that these factors crucially impact the functioning of quasi-judicial bodies, which handle matters relating to taxation, electricity, telecom, real estate, environment, company law, insolvency, consumer law, and armed forces service issues. Datar stressed that an inadequately equipped tribunal system could hinder economic growth and compromise the ease of doing business in India. “The recommendations of the judiciary must be accepted as they promote the proper functioning of tribunals, which are vital for the economic well-being of the nation,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s observations underline the delicate balance between legislative reforms and judicial oversight in the management of tribunals, which serve as key pillars of India’s quasi-judicial system. The bench posted the matter for further hearing, seeking more clarity on the rationale and necessity of the challenged provisions.

Legal experts note that the case could have far-reaching implications, potentially shaping how Parliament can legislate on tribunal matters in the future, and reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the independence and effectiveness of quasi-judicial institutions.