TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Members' Tenure, Criticizes Legislation</h1> <h3>MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2023 (385) E.L.T. 95 (SC) Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment include the tenure of four Judicial Members of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the age of retirement for members of the CESTAT, the impact of interim orders passed by the Supreme Court, and the validity of legislation affecting the tenure of tribunal members.Tenure of Judicial Members:The four Judicial Members of the CESTAT, whose tenures were set to end in April and May 2023, had applied for selection in 2016 based on the age of retirement being 62 years as per the parent legislation. Despite subsequent legislative changes, interim orders by the Supreme Court upheld the original retirement age for those appointed when it was 62 years. Two members resigned from judicial service to join CESTAT based on the retirement age, while one member was a practicing Advocate who joined under the same conditions.Impact of Interim Orders:The Supreme Court referenced previous judgments to emphasize that appointments made based on interim orders should be governed by the legislation in place at the time of appointment. The Court highlighted that legislative changes cannot override appointments made in accordance with interim directions issued by the Court.Validity of Legislation:The judgment criticized the Union Government for introducing legislation that curtailed the tenure of tribunal members to five years, affecting those entitled to continue in office until the age of 62 years. The Court found this curtailment arbitrary, lacking justification or public interest, and potentially compromising the independence of the judiciary. The legislation was deemed discriminatory as it affected certain members differently than others.Decision and Future Proceedings:The Supreme Court ruled that the four Judicial Members should continue in service until the final disposal of the Writ Petition, scheduled for July 2023. The Court directed all Counsel to submit written submissions before the final hearing to facilitate the resolution of the matter. The judgment aimed to protect the rights of the Judicial Members in light of the interim orders and legislative changes affecting their tenure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
