Tribunal Reforms Act provisions on age, tenure, selection, allowances struck down as unconstitutional legislative override of precedent

SC held that key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, including those imposing a minimum age of 50 years, four-year tenure with upper age caps, a restricted selection process, and parity of allowances with civil servants, are unconstitutional. The Court ruled that Parliament cannot simply re-enact provisions earlier struck down in MBA (V) and related cases without curing the identified constitutional defects. Such reenactment violates separation of powers, judicial independence, Article 14, and the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, and amounts to an impermissible legislative override of binding directions. The offending provisions were struck down, and protection was extended to certain ITAT members whose appointments were adversely affected. The petition was disposed of.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether a reference of the matters arising from the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 to a larger Bench was warranted under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.

1.2 Whether Parliament can disregard or legislatively override binding judicial pronouncements on tribunals without curing the constitutional defects identified by the Court.

1.3 Whether the constitutionality of tribunal-related legislation can be tested on the basis of structural constitutional principles such as separation of powers and judicial independence, and whether these are enforceable constitutional limits.

1.4 Whether the core provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 governing qualifications, appointments, tenure and service conditions of tribunal members (including minimum age bar of 50 years, four-year tenure, panel of two names, and parity of allowances with civil servants) are constitutionally valid.

1.5 What protections and transitional arrangements apply to serving and selected tribunal members, and what interim constitutional regime governs tribunals pending fresh legislation, including the obligation to establish a National Tribunals Commission.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Reference to a larger Bench

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 Article 145(3) requires a Bench of at least five Judges where a "substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution" is involved.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Court noted that the constitutional questions relating to the creation, composition, independence and functioning of tribunals have already been comprehensively settled by Constitution Benches and larger Benches in Sampath Kumar, L. Chandra Kumar, the Madras Bar Association series and Rojer Mathew.

2.3 No new or unresolved substantial constitutional question was shown that would require reconsideration of those precedents or departure from them. The Attorney General was unable to demonstrate any fresh constitutional issue justifying a reference.

2.4 The plea for reference was made at an advanced stage of hearing, after substantial arguments had been heard, and entertaining it then would undermine procedural fairness and delay adjudication.

2.5 Further delay would perpetuate vacancies and uncertainty in tribunals, adversely impacting access to justice.

Conclusions

2.6 No case was made out for reference under Article 145(3); the application for reference to a larger Bench was rejected.

Issue 2 - Parliament's power vis-à-vis binding judicial decisions (constitutional supremacy and legislative overruling)

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.7 The Court reiterated the doctrine of constitutional supremacy as articulated in Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, Kesavananda Bharati, State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and Kalpana Mehta: the Constitution is "Suprema lex" and no organ enjoys absolute power.

2.8 Judicial review and the "law declared" by the Supreme Court under Article 141 are essential facets of the basic structure and of constitutional supremacy.

2.9 The Court relied upon NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Dr. Jaya Thakur to summarise permissible "abrogation" by legislation: the legislature may retrospectively amend the law to remove the basis of a judgment by curing the defect, but cannot merely set aside or negate a judicial decision without removing the defect, nor nullify a mandamus by simple reenactment.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.10 Parliament has wide legislative power, including to change the law prospectively or retrospectively, but must act within constitutional limits and cannot claim the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

2.11 Once the Court has identified constitutional defects and issued directions (in the nature of mandamus) concerning age, tenure, selection process, HRA, judicial dominance in appointments, etc., those directions constitute "law declared" under Article 141, not mere suggestions.

2.12 Parliament may validly respond only by curing the defects pointed out; a bare reenactment of provisions already struck down, especially with a non obstante reference to "any judgment", constitutes an impermissible legislative override and colourable legislation.

2.13 A writ of mandamus, or binding final decision (including interim directions implemented and acted upon), cannot be nullified by subsequent legislation unless the foundational basis of the judgment is removed in a constitutionally compliant manner.

Conclusions

2.14 Parliament cannot ignore or contradict binding decisions of the Court by reenacting the same provisions in a new form without curing the identified defects; any such attempt violates constitutional supremacy, separation of powers and Article 14 and is liable to be struck down.

2.15 The Attorney General's contention that Parliament enjoys unfettered discretion to deviate from earlier judicial directions in the tribunal context was rejected.

Issue 3 - Use of separation of powers and judicial independence as enforceable constitutional limits

Legal framework (as discussed)

3.1 The Court traced the tribunals jurisprudence from Sampath Kumar, R.K. Jain, L. Chandra Kumar, R. Gandhi (MBA I), MBA II, MBA III, Rojer Mathew, MBA IV and MBA V, which collectively define the constitutional standards for tribunals: judicial independence, separation of powers, equality under Article 14, and the basic feature of judicial review.

3.2 Justice Bhat's concurrence in MBA V was relied upon to affirm that independence of the judiciary and separation of powers are concrete, justiciable constitutional principles, not vague notions.

Interpretation and reasoning

3.3 The Court rejected the Union's argument that legislation cannot be tested against "abstract principles" like separation of powers or judicial independence. These principles are grounded in the text and scheme of the Constitution (Articles 32, 136, 141, 226, 227, provisions on judicial tenure and removal, etc.) and have been repeatedly enforced.

3.4 Tribunals exercise judicial power traditionally exercised by courts; therefore, structural guarantees of judicial independence and equal quality of justice apply equally to them. This includes standards on appointments, tenure, composition, and insulation from executive control.

3.5 Through the tribunal cases, the Court has distilled specific constitutional benchmarks for tribunals: judicial primacy in selection, minimum tenure (5 years with reappointment), no arbitrary age bars excluding meritorious younger advocates, adequate housing/HRA, protection from executive-dominated rule-making, and prohibition of tribunals as post-retirement sinecures or executive-controlled bodies.

3.6 The Court analogised this to other constitutional doctrines: the preconditions in M. Nagaraj for reservation in promotion, and the privacy framework in K.S. Puttaswamy-none expressly textual, yet binding constitutional standards against which legislation is tested.

Conclusions

3.7 Separation of powers and judicial independence are operative constitutional limits; legislation concerning tribunals can and must be scrutinised against these structural principles and Article 14.

3.8 The settled tribunal jurisprudence creates binding constitutional benchmarks, and any tribunal legislation must conform to those standards.

Issue 4 - Constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 (core provisions on appointments, tenure and service conditions)

Legal framework (as discussed)

4.1 The Court compared the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021 (amending Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017) with the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

4.2 The earlier Ordinance provisions on (i) minimum age of 50 years, (ii) four-year tenure with age caps of 70/67, (iii) requirement of a panel of two names, (iv) parity of allowances/benefits with equivalent civil servants, had already been adjudicated and struck down in MBA V as unconstitutional.

Interpretation and reasoning

4.3 On a clause-by-clause comparison, the Court found that Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 are, in substance and often verbatim, a reenactment of the impugned Ordinance provisions earlier challenged and invalidated in MBA V, including:

* Section 3(1): minimum age requirement of 50 years for all appointments to tribunals.

* Section 3(2)-(8): composition and procedure of Search-cum-Selection Committees, including requirement that they recommend a panel of two names per vacancy and the Government "preferably" decide within three months.

* Section 4: grounds and procedure for removal, mirroring the earlier framework.

* Section 5: fixed four-year tenure for Chairperson and Members with upper age caps (70/67), with a limited saving proviso subject to a maximum of five years.

* Section 6: eligibility for reappointment "in accordance with the provisions of this Act", without curing the defects identified in MBA IV/V.

* Section 7: salaries, allowances and benefits pegged to those of equivalent level Central Government officers, with only limited scope for enhanced rent reimbursement-repeating the very scheme earlier found inconsistent with directions on HRA and housing.

4.4 The Court noted that the same policy of truncating tenure, imposing an exclusionary age bar, mandating panels of two names, and equating service conditions with civil servants had been expressly held in MBA IV and MBA V to undermine judicial independence, discourage meritorious younger advocates, and amount to an impermissible legislative override.

4.5 Merely re-locating these provisions from the Finance Act into a stand-alone Tribunal Reforms Act and appending non obstante clauses referring to "any judgment" does not cure the constitutional defects; it reinforces the intention to defy binding judicial directions.

4.6 The Court observed that the Union's submissions in defence of the Act simply repeated contentions already examined and rejected in MBA V, including characterising prior directions as non-binding "suggestions" and invoking "policy" deference.

4.7 As to the numerous amendments by which tribunal provisions in sectoral statutes were superseded by the new Act, the Court held that, to the extent they route appointments and conditions of service through the unconstitutional scheme of Chapter II of the Tribunal Reforms Act, they suffer from the same infirmity.

Conclusions

4.8 The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, insofar as it:

* prescribes a minimum age of 50 years for appointment as Chairperson or Member of tribunals;

* fixes a tenure of four years with age caps of 70/67;

* requires the Search-cum-Selection Committee to recommend a panel of two names per post, leaving effective discretion with the executive;

* equates allowances and benefits with those of equivalent civil servants, contrary to prior directions on HRA and housing; and

* reenacts, in substance, provisions earlier struck down in MBA IV and MBA V without curing the defects;

is unconstitutional as violative of separation of powers, judicial independence, Article 14 and the doctrine of constitutional supremacy.

4.9 These impugned provisions are struck down; the Act is held to be an impermissible legislative override and a repetition of already invalidated measures, "old wine in a new bottle".

Issue 5 - Protection of existing appointees, interim regime, and National Tribunals Commission

Legal framework (as discussed)

5.1 The Court referred to prior interim and final directions in Kudrat Sandhu and MBA IV and MBA V protecting tenure and conditions of service of existing tribunal members, and recognising legitimate expectations arising from appointments made under earlier frameworks.

5.2 It also recalled the repeated direction to establish an independent National Tribunals Commission to oversee appointments, administration and disciplinary matters of tribunals.

Interpretation and reasoning

5.3 The Court held that stability of tenure and protection of vested rights of existing members are integral to judicial independence; promises and assurances given previously by the Attorney General and orders protecting tenure cannot be undermined by subsequent inconsistent executive action.

5.4 The Court found that appointments to the ITAT, whose recommendations were made by the SCSC in September 2019 and approved in October 2019, ought to have been made under the old regime pursuant to Rojer Mathew and the Attorney General's statement of 9 February 2018; issuing appointment orders in September and October 2021 subjecting them to the new truncated regime was inconsistent with those binding assurances.

5.5 The Court noted that similar anomalies may exist in other tribunals, and that such appointments must not be penalised by unilateral curtailment of tenure.

5.6 Given the repeated legislative-executive failure to enact a constitutionally compliant, stable tribunal framework, the Court considered it necessary to continue the application of MBA IV and MBA V as the controlling constitutional regime until Parliament enacts valid legislation.

5.7 The Court reaffirmed the necessity of a National Tribunals Commission as an institutional solution, beyond piecemeal directions, to safeguard tribunal independence and efficiency, and fixed a concrete time-frame for its establishment.

Conclusions

5.8 The principles and directions laid down in MBA IV and MBA V shall continue to govern all aspects of tribunal appointments, qualifications, tenure, service conditions and allied matters until Parliament enacts fresh, constitutionally compliant legislation addressing the concerns repeatedly highlighted by the Court.

5.9 The Union of India is directed to establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months, conforming to the principles articulated in earlier judgments, ensuring independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes and effective oversight.

5.10 The service conditions of all ITAT Members appointed by orders dated 11 September 2021 and 1 October 2021 shall be governed by the "old Act and old Rules", i.e., by the parent statute and pre-Finance Act framework as preserved by Kudrat Sandhu and subsequent directions.

5.11 All appointments of tribunal Members and Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was completed before the commencement of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, but whose formal appointment notifications were issued thereafter, are protected; their tenure and service conditions will be governed by the parent statutes and the regime laid down in MBA IV and MBA V, and not by the truncated provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

5.12 The writ petitions were disposed of in these terms; pending applications stood disposed of. A concurring opinion reiterated that the Act is merely a replica of the already struck down Ordinance.

---