Current Affairs
Supreme Court Strikes Down Some Provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021
The Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, noting that they affect judicial independence and the separation of powers.
On November 19, 2025, the Supreme Court struck down some provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a two-judge bench alongside Justice K. Vinod Chandran, declared that the impugned legislation violated fundamental constitutional principles and directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunals Commission (NTC) within four months.
What are Tribunals and Their Significance
Tribunals are specialised adjudicatory bodies created to provide expert, efficient, and speedy resolution of disputes in technical domains such as taxation, service matters, environmental regulation, and corporate law. Inserted through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, Part XIV-A empowers the legislature to establish tribunals.
Under Article 323-A, Parliament is empowered to establish administrative tribunals for service-related matters, while Article 323-B enables the appropriate legislature to constitute tribunals for other enumerated subjects.
Their significance lies in reducing the burden on constitutional courts, ensuring subject-matter expertise in decision-making, and enabling quicker justice delivery in complex regulatory sectors. The Supreme Court has consistently underscored that tribunals serve as an extension of the justice system, and therefore must maintain judicial independence, secure tenure, and transparent appointments.
Why the Court Intervened
The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 was enacted in August 2021, weeks after the Supreme Court had struck down the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021. The Court identified this as an “impermissible legislative override”, an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without curing the underlying constitutional infirmities.
What Provisions Were Struck Down?
The Supreme Court invalidated several provisions that potentially compromised judicial independence:
Minimum Age Requirement of 50 Years
Section 3 of the Act mandated that no person below 50 years could be appointed as a tribunal chairperson or member. The Court held that the provision was arbitrary and violated Article 14 because it excluded competent younger advocates, even though they had the required 10 years of practice, from being considered for appointment.
Four-Year Tenure
The Act prescribed a fixed term of four years for tribunal members, with upper age caps of 70 years for chairpersons and 67 years for members. The Supreme Court has mandated a minimum five-year tenure to ensure institutional stability and protect members from executive pressure during their service, thereby guaranteeing security of tenure. This is critical for their impartial functioning.
Panel Recommendation System
The impugned legislation required the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) to recommend a panel of two names for each vacancy, effectively transferring final selection discretion to the executive. This diluted the judiciary’s independence in appointments. The Court had previously directed that the SCSC should recommend only one name per post, ensuring that judicial wisdom, not executive preference, determined appointments.
Service Conditions Equivalent to Civil Servants
Provisions fixing tribunal members’ allowances and benefits equivalent to those of civil servants were invalidated. The Court emphasized that quasi-judicial officers must enjoy conditions comparable to High Court judges, not administrative officers, to attract high-caliber legal professionals and maintain institutional dignity.
National Tribunals Commission: A Structural Safeguard
The most significant directive in this judgment is the mandatory establishment of the National Tribunals Commission (NTC) within four months. The NTC has been envisioned as an “essential structural safeguard” to ensure:
- Independent Appointment Oversight: The Commission will oversee appointments to all tribunals, ensuring independence from executive influence. The Court held that since the Executive is often a litigant, it cannot influence and dominate the selection process. Drawing from the Fourth Judges Case, it stressed that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies must be free from executive control to protect tribunal independence.
- Centralized Administrative Control: The NTC will handle administrative and infrastructural needs uniformly across all tribunals. Currently, tribunals depend on their parent ministries for funding, infrastructure, and resources, a system that inherently compromises neutrality.
- Disciplinary Authority: The Commission will exclusively conduct disciplinary proceedings against tribunal members, protecting their tenure and independence by removing this authority from the executive branch.
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
The judgment discussed the limits of legislative power when responding to judicial decisions. The Court observed that once a provision is struck down for a constitutional defect, Parliament cannot reenact the same measure in another form. Instead, Parliament may address the defect identified by the Court.
The Constitution operates on the principle of constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary sovereignty. Every organ of the State including legislature, executive, and judiciary derives its authority from the Constitution and must function within prescribed boundaries. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized in the Constituent Assembly, constitutional authorities owe allegiance to the Constitution itself, not to each other’s unlimited discretion.
These observations of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar captures the constitutional principles central to this case. The issues involve the limits of judicial review, the scope of separation of powers, the manner in which Parliament exercises legislative authority, and the corresponding restraints on the Executive.
The Court rejected the Union Government’s argument that it had “discretion to ignore Supreme Court decisions,” affirming that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and that binding precedents must be respected by all branches of government.
Immediate Impact and Operational Consequences
Following the judgment, the principles established in earlier Madras Bar Association judgments (2020 and 2021) automatically govern all matters related to tribunal qualifications, appointments, tenure, and service conditions. This means:
- Five-year minimum tenure is restored for all new appointments
- The arbitrary 50-year age bar for appointment is eliminated
- Selection committees must follow strict judicial dominance protocols
- Service conditions must reflect judicial parity, not civil service equivalence
The Court also protected the rights of existing appointees whose selections were completed before the 2021 Act but whose appointment notifications came afterward. These individuals will continue under the parent statutes and judicial directives.
Specifically, members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) shall continue until age 62, with their presidents serving until age 65, overriding the Act’s provisions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s striking down some provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act provisions represents far more than a technical legal correction. It is a reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and judicial independence against persistent executive encroachment. The directive to establish the National Tribunals Commission within four months offers a pathway to permanent institutional stability.
The message from the Supreme Court is unequivocal: respect for settled law is as essential to good governance as it is to judicial discipline.
Master Digital Age Governance & Technology Trends with VisionIAS Comprehensive Current Affairs →
Supreme Court Strikes Down Tribunal Reforms Act FAQs
1. What earlier judicial standards now automatically apply after the Act’s provisions were struck down?
Ans. The standards laid down in Madras Bar Association cases (2020 & 2021) on qualifications, appointments, tenure, and service conditions.
2. What age restriction did the Court invalidate for appointment of tribunal chairperson or member?
Ans. 50-year minimum age requirement.
3. What is the National Tribunals Commission (NTC) and why did the Court mandate its creation?
Ans. The NTC is envisioned as an independent body to oversee appointments, administration, and disciplinary processes of tribunals, ensuring insulation from executive influence.
4. What is the retirement age for tribunal chairpersons and members?
Ans. 70 years for chairpersons, 67 for members.
5. What constitutional principle did the judgment reaffirm?
Ans. Constitutional supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty.
