SYLLABUS
GS-2: Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation
GS-2: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary Ministries and Departments of the Government; pressure groups and formal/informal associations and their role in the Polity
Context: The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021, as unconstitutional and violative of separation of powers and judicial independence.
Key Provisions struck down by Supreme Court
- Minimum Age Requirement:
- The Act required that only individuals aged 50 or above could be considered for appointment as a tribunal chairperson or member.
- The arbitrary age barrier lacked a rational basis and hindered the independence and effectiveness of tribunals by discouraging capable individuals in their 40s.
- Short Tenure:
- The Act set a four-year fixed tenure for tribunal members, along with maximum age limits of 70 years for chairpersons and 67 years for members.
- A four-year tenure was too brief for ensuring institutional stability and independence. Short terms risked frequent turnover and pressured members to align with executive interests for reappointment, undermining adjudicatory consistency and expertise development.
- Re-appointment Mechanism:
- The Act permitted tribunal chairpersons and members to be re-appointed for an additional term subject to the recommendations of the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
- Members seeking extensions may favour the executive, which controls reappointment, violating the principle of adjudicatory independence from executive influence.
- Executive Control over Service Conditions:
- Executive control of salaries and service terms creates dependency that threatens tribunal independence.
- Fixed, secure service conditions are essential to prevent financial leverage by the executive over adjudicators.
- Composition of Search-cum-Selection Committee: The committee including government secretaries in the appointment committee gave undue executive dominance, raising conflict of interest concerns. This structure undermines impartiality and contradicts prior court mandates for judicial-majority selection bodies to protect tribunal independence.
Court’s Reasoning
- Violation of Separation of Powers & Judicial Independence:
- The Court held that these provisions undermined judicial independence, a core constitutional value.
- By re-enacting previously struck-down clauses (with minor tweaks), Parliament sought a legislative override of binding judicial decisions.
- The Court asserted that the executive cannot dominate tribunal appointments, given the executive is often a litigant before tribunals.
- Violation of Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy:
- The Court emphasised that Parliament’s power is “broad but not absolute.”
- Re-enacting struck-down provisions without curing “underlying constitutional defects” violates the doctrine of constitutional supremacy.
- According to the Court, separation of powers and judicial independence are not vague ideals, but structural pillars of the Constitution.
Implications of the Judgement
- Judicial Independence: The ruling upholds the independence of tribunals by ensuring that adjudicatory bodies remain free from executive interference.
- Legislative Accountability: The judgment upholds constitutional checks on legislative power, ensuring that Parliament enacts laws consistent with judicially laid-down standards.
- Institutional Reform: The direction to set up a National Tribunals Commission establishes a structural mechanism to ensure uniformity, transparency, and independence across the tribunal system.
- Access to Justice: By securing fixed tenure and independence of tribunal members, the judgment improves the fairness and effectiveness of the tribunal system.