2021 (10) TMI 885 - SC - Indian Laws

Minimum age limit of 50 years for tribunal appointments under Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021 declared unconstitutional

The SC declared void the minimum age limit of 50 years for tribunal appointments under the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021. The court found the age ... Separation of powers - independence of the judiciary - judicial review - legislative overruling and retrospective validation - mandamus and legislative nullification - security of tenure - equal protection under Article 14 - appointments and composition of Search cum Selection Committee - minimum age eligibility for tribunal members - tenure of tribunal Chairpersons and Members - house rent allowance and conditions of service - recommendation panel size and executive decision periodMinimum age eligibility for tribunal members - equal protection under Article 14 - independence of the judiciary - First proviso to Section 184(1) prescribing minimum age of 50 years for appointment as Chairperson or Member is unconstitutional. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the statutory minimum age of 50 is an impermissible legislative override of this Court's directions in MBA III and is arbitrary in its effect. Fixing 50 years as a threshold frustrates the policy of recruiting capable advocates at a younger age and acts as a deterrent to attracting competent entrants from the bar, thereby impairing security of tenure and the institutional independence necessary for tribunals. Consequently the first proviso violates the principles of separation of powers and equality under Article 14 and is struck down. [Paras 49]First proviso to Section 184(1) declared unconstitutional and void.House rent allowance and conditions of service - independence of the judiciary - mandamus and legislative nullification - Second proviso to Section 184(1), read with the third proviso (allowances/HRA parity with Central Government officers), is unconstitutional but subsequent amendment to Rule 15 cures HRA direction compliance; no further relief on HRA is required. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the provisos seeking to limit allowances and benefits to those admissible to a Central Government officer of the same pay frustrate MBA III's directive to ensure adequate HRA and conditions of service necessary for tribunal independence. The second proviso (and the related third proviso) were therefore declared unconstitutional. The Court noted, however, that a later statutory rule amendment (notification dated 30 6 2021 amending Rule 15) gives retrospective effect to enhanced HRA in conformity with MBA III; accordingly no additional remedial direction on HRA was issued. [Paras 50, 51]Second proviso and the third proviso declared unconstitutional; amendment to Rule 15 (30 6 2021) aligns HRA with earlier directions and no further order on HRA is necessary.Appointments and composition of Search cum Selection Committee - recommendation panel size and executive decision period - separation of powers - Section 184(7) insofar as it requires the Committee to recommend a panel of two names for each post and permits the Government to take a decision 'preferably within three months' is unconstitutional to the extent it negates MBA III's requirement that the Search cum Selection Committee recommend one name for each post and that appointments be made within three months. - HELD THAT: - The Court reasoned that MBA III had decisively laid down that the SCSC must recommend a single name for each post to minimise executive discretion and protect institutional independence. Repeating the 2020 Rule's panel mechanism and retaining an attenuated timeline clause in Section 184(7) is an indirect intrusion into the judicial domain and an attempt to override the law laid down by this Court. Consequently Section 184(7) is unsustainable to the extent it undermines the single name recommendation principle and the Court's direction for prompt appointment. [Paras 53, 54]Section 184(7) declared unconstitutional insofar as it requires a panel of two names and thereby negates MBA III; the Government's three month timeline expressed as 'preferably' does not cure the vice but does not require further direction beyond striking down the panel requirement.Tenure of tribunal Chairpersons and Members - retrospective legislation and legislative overruling - security of tenure - mandamus and legislative nullification - Section 184(11) fixing tenure of Chairpersons and Members at four years is unconstitutional; the retrospective proviso preserving longer terms for appointments made between 26 5 2017 and 4 4 2021 is upheld but limited so as not to reduce tenures already conferred by prior appointment-orders. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that prescribing a four year tenure was an impermissible legislative attempt to override MBA III's declaration that Chairpersons and Members should hold office for five years, as short tenure undermines independence and is contrary to separation of powers and Article 14. Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 184(11) (four year tenure) were therefore struck down. However, the proviso to Section 184(11) - which addresses appointments made between 26 5 2017 and the notified date - was sustained to the extent that it preserves the terms of valid appointment orders (subject to a maximum of five years), and the Court protected appointments made pursuant to interim orders (for CESTAT) so as not to abridge tenures already granted pursuant to this Court's earlier orders. [Paras 55, 56, 57]Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 184(11) declared void and unconstitutional; the proviso preserving certain prior appointment terms is upheld and incumbents appointed pursuant to specified interim orders shall not have their tenures reduced by the Ordinance.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is allowed in part: the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 is declared unconstitutional insofar as it (a) prescribes a minimum age of 50 years for appointment as Chairperson or Member, (b) limits allowances/ HRA by equating benefits to those of Central Government officers (subject to the subsequent Rule 15 amendment which conforms to earlier directions), (c) mandates a panel recommendation procedure under Section 184(7) that negates MBA III, and (d) fixes tenure at four years under Section 184(11)(i),(ii). The Court upholds the retrospective proviso protecting certain appointments made between 26 5 2017 and 4 4 2021 and directs that appointments made pursuant to the Court's interim directions be respected; otherwise the Ordinance provisions identified above are struck down and the matter is disposed accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.2. Constitutionality of Sections 184 and 186(2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.3. Violation of Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution of India.4. Principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary.5. Validity of the minimum age requirement of 50 years for appointment as Chairperson or Member.6. Validity of the allowances and benefits payable to Chairpersons and Members.7. Validity of Section 184(7) regarding the recommendation of a panel of two names for each post.8. Validity of Section 184(11) fixing the tenure of Chairpersons and Members at four years.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021:The Madras Bar Association challenged these sections as ultra vires Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution, arguing they violate the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. The Court found that the provisions were an attempt to circumvent previous judgments and declared them unconstitutional.2. Constitutionality of Sections 184 and 186(2) of the Finance Act, 2017:The amendments made by the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance were scrutinized. The Court declared certain amendments, such as the minimum age requirement of 50 years and the tenure of four years for Chairpersons and Members, as unconstitutional because they contradicted earlier judgments and violated the principle of judicial independence.3. Violation of Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution:The Court held that the impugned provisions violated Article 14 (Equality before Law) as they were arbitrary and lacked a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The provisions also infringed upon judicial independence, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.4. Principles of Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary:The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the separation of powers. It held that the legislative amendments were an impermissible legislative override of judicial decisions, thus violating the principle of separation of powers.5. Validity of the Minimum Age Requirement of 50 Years:The Court found the minimum age requirement of 50 years for appointment as Chairperson or Member to be arbitrary and discriminatory. It noted that this requirement excluded competent advocates and other professionals under 50 years of age, which was contrary to previous judgments that emphasized the inclusion of younger professionals to ensure a longer tenure and better service.6. Validity of the Allowances and Benefits Payable to Chairpersons and Members:The second proviso to Section 184(1), which linked the allowances and benefits payable to Chairpersons and Members to those of Central Government officers, was declared unconstitutional. The Court held that this provision was an affront to judicial independence and contradicted earlier judgments that directed higher allowances to ensure decent accommodation and independence.7. Validity of Section 184(7) Regarding the Recommendation of a Panel of Two Names:The Court declared Section 184(7) invalid as it contradicted earlier directions that the Search-cum-Selection Committee should recommend only one name for each post to limit executive discretion and ensure judicial independence.8. Validity of Section 184(11) Fixing the Tenure at Four Years:The Court held that fixing the tenure of Chairpersons and Members at four years was an attempt to override judicial decisions and was therefore unconstitutional. It emphasized that a short tenure would deter competent individuals from seeking appointments and undermine judicial independence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court declared several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, and the Finance Act, 2017, as unconstitutional. It emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the separation of powers, holding that the impugned provisions violated these principles and were arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court directed that appointments to Tribunals should be made in accordance with the principles laid down in previous judgments to ensure judicial independence and effective administration of justice.