[BREAKING] Basic structure violation no ground to strike down statute: Centre defends Tribunal Reforms Act

The Central government has defended the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 (Act), submitting before the Supreme Court that even if there is a violation of the basic structure doctrine, it is not a ground to attack the validity of a statute. .The Centre has told the Supreme Court that a violation of the principle of basic structure of the Constitution can be used to strike down a Constitutional amendment, but not a statute.."Basic structure in the Constitution can only be used to test the validity of a Constitutional amendment but has no relevance when it comes to validity of a statute," the reply by Centre said..The reply by the Union of India was filed in response to a batch of petitions filed by the Madras Bar Association, Jairam Ramesh and others challenging the constitutionality of the Act..The petitions had contended that Section 3(1) along with Sections 3(7), 5 and 7(1) of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 violated Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution.."It has been held in a series of cases including by two Constitutional Bench decisions and by a 7 judges bench of this Hon'ble Court that basic structure in the Constitution can only be used to test the validity of a Constitutional amendment but has no relevance when it comes to validity of a statue," said the reply filed by the Centre..The Centre further contended that independence of the judiciary is not a ground which can be used for testing statutes.."If for any reason independence of the judiciary is treated as the basis, one could not phrase a provision by declaring that independence is removed which would ex facie sound antithetical. What is more, independence of the judiciary is not a ground which can be used for testing statutes," the reply stated. .The petitioners had submitted that Section 3 (1) of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 is flagrantly unconstitutional and that it violated Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution..The said provision bars the appointment of persons below fifty years of age to tribunals. This, the petitioners contend, undermines the length and security of tenure and violates both judicial independence and the principle of separation of powers..Similar concerns are raised with respect to Section 3(7) of the 2021 Act. The said provision mandates the recommendation of a panel of two names by the search-cum selection committee to the Central Government for appointment to tribunals..[BREAKING] Show us parliamentary debates, reasons for passing Tribunal Reforms law to get over Madras Bar Assn. verdict: Supreme Court to Centre.The Union of India has responded by arguing that it is distressed that laws and statutory rules made by Parliament and the Executive in areas of pure policy "are being held to be void by invoking independence of the judiciary, when such laws and rules do not violate fundamental rights or any provision of the Constitution and is wholly within competency."."Government equally believes that the Court striking down these pure matters of policy violates the separation of powers by the judicial wing of the State," read the reply..[BREAKING] Congress MP Jairam Ramesh moves Supreme Court challenging provisions of Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 .The government further asserted that the top Court should have upheld each aspect of the ordinance that was struck down in Madras Bar IV judgment since it involved issues of policy and "so that there may be comity between the three organs of state and there can be no confusion in the mind of Parliament."."These issues cannot be traced to independence of the judiciary," the Centre argued.."What is significant is if the separation of powers entrusts to Parliament and the Executive the exclusive jurisdiction to decide as to what would be the best policy, which would be necessary in public interest, then, the principle of separation of powers itself would stand violated if the Judiciary interferes with Issues of policy and substitutes what it believes would be a better policy" the Centre further stated..The reply also cited an example, arguing that to limit the experience to ten years in the case of a professional like a lawyer without extending the same benefit to other professionals who are eligible to be appointed as members of the Tribunals would be ex facie discriminatory and liable to be struck down.."Parliament has extended itself to accommodate the various views expressed by the Court in MBA-Ill and MEA-IY ... The legislation on the four issues is the declaration on policy which Parliament, expressing the will of the people on matters of policy, has to protect," stated the reply.