Supreme Court Questions Centre on ‘Thought Process’ Behind Reintroduction of Struck Down Provisions in Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Union Government on the rationale and thought process behind re-enacting provisions under Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 that had previously been struck down by the Court. The bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the plea filed by the Madras Bar Association (MBA), which has challenged the 2021 Act as being contrary to a series of earlier Supreme Court judgments that had laid down clear standards for appointments and tenures in tribunals across the country. Justice Chandran, addressing Attorney General R. Venkataramani, sought clarity on the Government’s reasoning behind the enactment, “What prompted you for this reform? That’s the question which you have not answered. You said you have thought over it, but what is the thought over? One instance of deviation cannot lead to reforms; there should be serious deliberation behind such legislative action.” Responding, the Attorney General (AG) submitted that the 2021 Act was the result of a long and continuous dialogue between the Judiciary and the Legislature, aimed at achieving uniformity and rationalisation in the structure and functioning of tribunals. “The running thread of the 2021 Act is uniformity—it is a culmination of the judgments and Parliament talking to each other. Uniformity was not a mere imagination of the Government; it evolved from this Court’s own engagement on the matter,” the AG argued. The AG clarified that the reforms were not an afterthought following the Court’s verdicts but rather an outcome of their cumulative reasoning, “this is not a prompting after the judgment; this is a prompting as a reason of the judgments.” Notably, in Madras Bar Association III (MBA III) and Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court had previously struck down key provisions—such as limiting the tenure of tribunal members to four years, setting a minimum age requirement of 50 years, and permitting the selection committee to recommend two names for each post—as being unconstitutional and violative of judicial independence. Despite these rulings, the same provisions found their way back into the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, prompting sharp questions from the Bench. CJI Gavai asked the Attorney General, “What has been set aside by this Court—can it be reintroduced again by Parliament with slight changes in wording here and there?” In response, AG Venkataramani contended that there had been contrary institutional experiences since the earlier judgments, which justified the fresh legislative approach. “There now exists a contrary experience and a contrary reason from what the Supreme Court held in MBA III,” he submitted. When the CJI sought specifics, asking, “What is the contrary experience?”, the AG replied that over time, practical challenges had emerged that warranted reconsideration of the Court’s earlier stance. He elaborated that prescribing a minimum age of 50 years was a deliberate policy choice to ensure that tribunal members possess mature judgment and a broad-based understanding of social, economic, and political realities. “Not many advocates are willing to give up their practice and join tribunals for a fixed term. Therefore, setting eligibility at 50 years ensures that those who do join bring both depth and perspective,” he said, cautioning the Court against relying on anecdotal examples. “I would appeal to the Court not to assess these matters based on anecdotal experiences,” the AG added. During an earlier hearing, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Madras Bar Association, had opposed the provision that allows the search-cum-selection committee to recommend two names for each post of Chairperson. He argued that the selection should be strictly merit-based, contending that the appointment of candidates from a waiting list over those in the merit list undermines transparency and fairness. This is not the first time the Court has expressed concern over Parliament’s decision to re-enact provisions struck down by judicial review. Back in 2021, while hearing the same matter, the then Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana had observed, “the Government has not honoured our judgment.” The Court had, at the time, voiced strong disapproval of the Legislature’s move to circumvent prior rulings by merely rephrasing invalidated provisions. Case Details Case Title: Madras Bar Association Versus Union Of India And Anr. Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021 Judgement Awaited Read More: Gujarat High Court Quashes Criminal Prosecution for Late ITR Filing After Tax and Penalty Already Paid

Supreme Court Questions Centre on ‘Thought Process’ Behind Reintroduction of Struck Down Provisions in Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 12 AUGUST, 2026

Electrocution Compensation Claims Involving Disputed Facts Can’t Be Decided in Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

High Courts Can’t Grant Post-Dismissal Arrest Protection in GST Pre-Arrest Bail Matters; S. 69 Arrest Order Must Be Communicated: Supreme Court

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 12 AUGUST, 2026

Electrocution Compensation Claims Involving Disputed Facts Can’t Be Decided in Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

About us

Company

Categories