The Supreme Court of India witnessed a rare show of judicial frustration on Thursday as Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai sharply rebuked the Union government over repeated delays in the hearing of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The exchange highlighted tensions between the judiciary and the executive over procedural delays and the Centre’s perceived reluctance to engage fully with the litigation.

At the heart of the dispute are multiple petitions, led by the Madras Bar Association, questioning several key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act. The Act prescribes uniform tenure, age limits, and selection processes for chairpersons and members of various tribunals. Petitioners argue that these provisions undermine the independence of quasi-judicial bodies, contravening earlier Supreme Court judgments that emphasized judicial primacy in appointments to ensure the independence of tribunals discharging judicial functions.

The confrontational exchange unfolded when Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati sought yet another adjournment of the hearing scheduled for Friday. Citing the unavailability of Attorney General R. Venkataramani, who was engaged in an international arbitration, Bhati requested that the matter be deferred.

CJI Gavai’s response was immediate and pointed. “If you do not want us to hear and deliver the judgment, just tell us. Looks like you want this matter only after November 24,” he remarked. The comment reflected his perception that the government was attempting to defer the case until after his retirement on November 23. He underscored the repeated accommodation already extended to the Attorney General, noting that multiple rounds of adjournments had already been granted.

The CJI’s criticism extended to the Centre’s late-night application filed on November 2, requesting a reference of the case to a Constitution Bench—a move made after the petitioners had completed their arguments and the bench had adjourned to enable the Attorney General’s appearance. “First, we keep adjourning it on your request, and late in the night, we get an application that you want this matter to be referred to a Constitution bench. This is very unfair to the court. We wanted to hear this case tomorrow and utilize the weekend to write the judgment,” CJI Gavai stated.

The Chief Justice did not mince words in asserting that while the government holds the highest office in law, it must not treat judicial proceedings as malleable to administrative convenience. “We have the highest respect for the highest office in law for the government, but in this manner, hearings are being shunted out,” he said, subsequently fixing the matter for November 10 and directing Bhati to ensure the Attorney General’s presence.

The Supreme Court’s displeasure with the Centre is not new in this case. On November 3, a bench led by CJI Gavai, along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran, had already expressed concern over the government’s last-minute request to refer the case to a five-judge bench after petitioners had fully argued on the merits. Describing the move as “shocking,” the bench observed that the Centre appeared to be employing tactical maneuvers to delay proceedings. CJI Gavai noted that the Union government should not be allowed to raise a plea for reference to a larger bench after arguments have concluded.

The Attorney General had defended the application by arguing that the reference was not intended as a tactical delay but stemmed from a genuine conclusion that the case raised substantial constitutional questions. The bench clarified that a reference to a larger Constitution Bench would only be considered if the court itself independently found merit in the request. However, subsequent adjournments due to the Attorney General’s international commitments further fueled the CJI’s impatience, leading to Thursday’s sharp confrontation.

The petitions under consideration stem from a longstanding concern over the independence of tribunals. In July 2021, the Supreme Court had struck down several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, citing infringements on judicial independence and the principle of separation of powers. The Union government, however, subsequently enacted the Tribunal Reforms Act, which reintroduced many of the same provisions, particularly those concerning tenure and service conditions for tribunal chairpersons and members.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioners, has argued that the legislative move effectively circumvented the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment. The legal challenge emphasizes that tribunals performing judicial functions must remain independent of executive influence, and any uniform tenure or selection process dictated by the government risks compromising this principle.

Meanwhile, the Centre’s application in the case raises broader constitutional questions. Among these is the issue of whether the Supreme Court can direct Parliament to legislate in a particular manner, and whether judicial directions regulating legislative design infringe on the doctrine of separation of powers. The Centre’s stance, while framed as a question of constitutional interpretation, has been perceived by the bench as strategic stalling, particularly given the repeated adjournments and late-stage applications.

The Tribunal Reforms Act case is emblematic of a larger tension between judicial oversight and executive discretion in India. It raises fundamental questions about the balance of powers, the independence of quasi-judicial bodies, and the ability of the Supreme Court to ensure that legislation does not compromise institutional autonomy.

CJI Gavai’s remarks on Thursday also reflect a subtle, but unmistakable assertion of judicial authority. By directly questioning whether the government intended for the matter to be heard after his retirement, the Chief Justice underscored the importance of timely judicial resolution and resisted perceived executive attempts to delay or influence proceedings. His remarks also served as a stern reminder that while the executive is a respected participant in judicial processes, it must adhere to procedural proprieties and not treat court schedules as flexible according to its convenience.

The next hearing, scheduled for November 10, is expected to see full engagement from the government’s legal team, including the Attorney General, who has been repeatedly unavailable due to international commitments. Legal observers note that the case has significant implications, not only for tribunal governance but also for the broader separation of powers doctrine and judicial independence in India.

As the Supreme Court prepares to deliver its judgment, the episode serves as a sharp illustration of the judiciary’s vigilance in ensuring that constitutional challenges are not sidetracked by procedural delays. The Tribunal Reforms Act case is likely to remain a landmark in delineating the limits of executive discretion in legislative and administrative reforms concerning quasi-judicial bodies.