The Supreme Court witnessed a tense exchange as the Central Government once again sought an adjournment in the long-pending challenge to the Tribunal Reforms Act, prompting sharp observations from Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, who expressed his displeasure at the repeated deferments.
The matter—Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, which challenges the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act—was listed before a Bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai and Justices Vinod Chandran and K.V. Viswanathan.
Centre Seeks More Time; CJI Calls It “Unfair to the Court”
At the outset, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati informed the Bench that Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani had sought an adjournment in the case.
Visibly irked, CJI Gavai remarked, “We have accommodated you twice already. How many more? If you want it after November 24, tell us then. It is very unfair to the court. Every time you seek accommodation citing international arbitration matters. You have a battery of lawyers, and then you file midnight applications seeking reference to larger benches!”
CJI Gavai further noted that the repeated delays were disrespectful to the judicial process, “When we were in the High Court, we gave up other briefs when we had to appear here. We had the highest regard for the highest constitutional court. We didn’t take up any other matters for tomorrow, thinking we will hear this and write the judgment over the weekend.”
CJI Sets Firm Timeline
Determined to proceed, the Bench directed that Senior Advocate Arvind Datar would continue his submissions on November 7, while the Attorney General would be heard on Monday.
The CJI warned:
“Let Mr. Datar make his submissions tomorrow. Let the Attorney General address us on Monday. But if the AG does not come, we will close the case then.”
The court also indicated it would check whether the AG could appear later in the day at 2 PM, noting that he had earlier expressed willingness to do so.
Arvind Datar: “This Case Started 34 Years Ago”
Appearing for the Madras Bar Association, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar began his submissions by underlining the longevity of the litigation, “This case started 34 years ago in 1991, so to say.”
Datar focused on three contentious provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act — the minimum eligibility age of 50 years, a 4-year tenure, and the composition of the search-cum-selection committee.
He argued that these restrictions were arbitrary and contrary to earlier Supreme Court rulings, “The 50-year eligibility criterion is about giving a chance. There is no empirical evidence to show that 50 is the best entry age. The best example is the ITAT, which functioned efficiently for decades and served as a model for other tribunals. Yet, it has been dismantled in a perverse way.”
Bench Engages on Age and Experience
The discussion took a lighter turn when CJI Gavai, responding to Datar’s age-based argument, said with a smile, “See, I became a judge at 42 — maybe I did not have adequate experience at that time.”
To this, Datar quipped, “I don’t want to commit contempt,” drawing laughter in the courtroom.
Justice Vinod Chandran also added pointedly, “An order of a 50-year-old tribunal judge will be dealt with by a 45-year-old High Court judge!”
Datar supported the remark, explaining that an Additional Secretary in the government typically reaches that rank around the age of 50, and hence the 50-year threshold unfairly excludes competent younger candidates.
He referred to Justice Ravindra Bhat’s earlier judgment, which devoted 14 paragraphs to explaining why such an age cutoff was unjustified, “When you make a law, you must see what the Supreme Court has already said. Eligibility should not be confused with suitability.”
Background: The Madras Bar Association Challenge
The Madras Bar Association (MBA) has been at the forefront of challenging several iterations of the government’s attempts to restructure tribunals in India. The current challenge pertains to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, which governs appointments, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members.
The MBA argues that the law violates principles of judicial independence and undermines prior Supreme Court directions in earlier cases such as MBA v. Union of India (2020) and Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019).
Next Hearing on November 7, 2025
The Bench will hear Senior Advocate Arvind Datar’s continued submissions on November 7, 2025, while the Attorney General is expected to present the Union Government’s stand on November 10.
CJI Gavai made it clear that the Court will not entertain further adjournments, indicating that the long-running battle over tribunal reforms may soon reach its decisive stage.
Read More: Writ Jurisdiction Won’t Be Exercised In Fake GST ITC Cases: Delhi High Court