The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Madras Bar Association case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. The Court, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, examined key provisions of the Act, particularly those affecting the reduction in tenures of members and chairpersons of tribunals nationwide. The Court noted the need for clarity in service conditions and tenure norms to ensure the effective functioning of tribunals.
The dispute arose from several petitions challenging the government’s amendments and ordinances impacting tribunals, including Commercial Tribunals and ITAT. Petitioners contended that the reduced tenure of tribunal members and chairpersons, along with new eligibility criteria, were inconsistent with established Supreme Court precedents and disrupted institutional stability. The petitions also highlighted discrepancies in superannuation norms, which have caused confusion and discouraged professionals from accepting tribunal appointments.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioners, submitted that certain provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act and related ordinances contradicted prior Apex Court rulings. He flagged three major concerns: a minimum age of fifty years for tribunal members, a search-cum-selection committee recommending two candidates for chairperson positions, and a tenure of only four years for members and chairpersons. Datar stressed that established precedents, such as Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, mandate a minimum tenure of five years for tribunal appointments to ensure institutional stability.
Senior Advocate Porus Kaka, appearing for the Bombay ITAT Association, added that reducing tenures to four years would undermine the appeal of these positions. Referring to Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., he highlighted the need for uniform superannuation norms across tribunals and emphasized that the shortened tenure, combined with restrictions on post-tribunal practice, would deter competent legal professionals from joining tribunals. He observed, “Four years is short enough. But if you put them back in line, look at the chaos it causes to the institution, look at the damage it causes…certainly there has to be more than just four years, and then banning them from appearing after the tribunal, no advocate would come forward, no professional would come forward.”
The bench also heard submissions in connected petitions challenging amended rules for Chartered Accountants’ eligibility in ITAT. Petitioners argued that while advocates with ten years of practice could be appointed as members under the amended Rules of 2020-2021, CAs were required to have twenty-five years of experience, disrupting the earlier parity and fairness in appointments. Other intervenors made brief submissions on the institutional impact of these changes.
The Court carefully considered the submissions and noted the broader implications of truncated tenures and eligibility inconsistencies. While no final orders were pronounced during the hearing, the bench underscored that reducing tenure below established norms could undermine institutional continuity and deter competent professionals from joining tribunals, thereby affecting the efficiency and credibility of the judicial-administrative system.
The matter is currently under consideration, with the Court directing the parties to furnish detailed submissions on the impact of the amendments and proposed tenure changes on tribunal functioning. Further hearings are expected to examine whether the changes under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, align with constitutional and judicial safeguards for institutional stability.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
