Supreme Court Strikes Down The Tribunals Reform Act, 2021 — A Landmark Verdict Reinforcing Judicial Independence: The Supreme Court, in its final verdict, has declared the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, as a violation of judicial independence and therefore a breach of the Constitution. Read about the causes for the rejection of the Act, the amendments it makes to the Indian legal system, and the impact of this ruling on the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary.
Reasons for the Court’s Decision to Invalidate the Tribunals Reform Act
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has declared the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, as a violation of the Constitution and an illegal move by the legislature to infringe on the area that the court had already decided. As a result, the verdict is a signal that the court is the final interpreter of the constitution, and it reconfirms the idea of separation of powers.
The enactment tried to bestow on the central government the power to regulate tribunals more effectively—particularly in the areas of the appointment, tenure, and service conditions of members—while the apex court had already struck down similar provisions.
Essential Elements of the Verdict
Unconstitutional Override: The Court found the legislation to be a “legislative override” of the previous judgments, which breaches the principle of constitutional supremacy.
Judicial Independence: The verdict affirms that tribunals being free from executive control is an indispensable requirement of the constitution.
Five-Year Tenure: The Supreme Court has expanded its previous decision that a tribunal member should hold his office for at least five years.
National Tribunals Commission: The court set a time limit of four months for the government to provide an independent body responsible for appointments in tribunals.
Past
The present decision is among many court vs. executive conflicts over the management of tribunals. After the pivotal case of SP Sampath Kumar (1987), the Supreme Court has been emphasizing the requirement of independent tribunals. The government’s perpetual attempts to frustrate these decisions by enacting opposite laws have forced the Supreme Court to invalidate such attempts in the cases of Rojer Mathew (2019) and Madras Bar Association (2021) by holding that these efforts are unconstitutional.
Reasons Behind the Act Being Rejected
Reintroduction of Illegal Provisions: The enactment was basically a reiteration of certain clauses of the previous law, which had already been declared invalid.
Interference with Separation of Powers: The legislation bestowed the executive with too much power, thus weakening the judicial branch.
No New Constitutional Question: The Court turned down the government’s motion for a larger bench, calling it a tactic for delay.
The Court’s Statements
The Court remarked that the executive branch, by disregarding judicial pronouncements, not only invites needless litigation but also creates a delay in the appointment of members to the tribunals. The Court asserts that such disobedience enlarges the number of cases and, at the same time, erodes the confidence of the people in the justice system.
Influence on the Judiciary
The ruling reinstates the judiciary’s authority in the matter of appointments to tribunals.
It also makes mandatory the establishment of an independent National Tribunals Commission.
Furthermore, the ruling may be used as a precedent in matters of future judicial-administrative legislation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021?
It was the act that aimed at changing the way tribunals were managed by the central government, making the appointment and service condition powers a single-point control of the central government.
How does this judgment affect tribunal functioning?
This is an important step towards tribunal independence from the executive, as it guarantees that the delivery of justice is fair and unbiased.
What does the principle of constitutional supremacy mean?
According to this principle, the Constitution is considered the topmost law of the country, which implies that any other law or regulation must be in accordance with it. It is not allowed for lawmaking bodies to enact any law that is contrary to the way the judiciary interprets the Constitution.
