Against principles of Separation of Powers, Independence of Judiciary: Madras Bar Association moves SC challenging 2020 Tribunal Rules

The Madras Bar Association (MBA) has filed a PIL before the Supreme Court challenging the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020 for being in contravention of the principle of separation of powers..The petition states that the Rules also pose a threat to the independence of the judiciary and the effective and efficient administration of justice. These Rules, the PIL says, are also ex-facie against the decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd..The PIL avers that the 2020 Rules are in contravention of Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution of India and thus should be struck down..It is pointed out that in 2017, the government had notified Rules for Tribunals and Appellant Tribunals and similar authorities. These came to be assailed in the Rojer Mathew case considering that they were framed under the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017, which itself was challenged before the Supreme Court. In that case, the Court was also considering the question of passage of the Finance Act as a Money Bill..While the five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the question of passage of the Finance Act as Money Bill to a larger Bench and the same remains pending still, the 2017 Rules were struck down. These Rules had provided for terms and conditions of service for members of as many as 19 Tribunals. The Court struck these rules down, the PIL says, "for contravening the principles of separation of powers, diluting the independence of the Judiciary and for being against previous decisions of this Hon’ble Court.".[Breaking] Tribunals: Supreme Court refers passage of Finance Act as Money Bill to larger bench, strikes down Rules framed under Section 184.However, subsequently, the 2020 Rules came to be notified. These Rules, the petitioner association avers, are again in contravention of the aforementioned principles, and the 2018 judgment..In the previous judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue of Tribunals, the Court had laid down various principles in order to prevent the interference of the executive or dilution of the power of the judiciary. These included requirement of judicial dominance in the appointment process for Tribunal members, presiding officers of the Tribunals to be judicial members, and non-appointment of members of the Indian legal services or retired judges to the post of judicial members, among others..These established principles of law laid down through the judgments of the Supreme Court are alleged to have been diluted even in the 2020 Rules, owing to which the Madras Bar Association has assailed them. The petition points out that the 2020 Rules provide for non-judicial members to be appointed as presiding officers in some tribunals, there is no provision of judicial dominance in search and selection committees, and that administrative and financial control is given to the executive..Thus, the petition prays,."Hence, the Petitioner prays that the 2020 Rules ought to be struck down for being arbitrary, unreasonable, against the principles of Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary, and in contravention of previous decisions of this Hon’ble Court.".The petition is filed through Advocate TVS Raghavendra Sreyas and is drawn by Advocates Rahul Unnikrishnan and Naveen Hegde. The plea is settled by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar.