[BREAKING] Show us parliamentary debates, reasons for passing Tribunal Reforms law to get over Madras Bar Assn. verdict: Supreme Court to Centre

The Supreme Court on Monday berated the Central government for its failure to fill up vacancies in tribunals stating that many tribunals are on the verge of becoming defunct due to the government's laxity in appointments. .The Court said that immediately after the Supreme Court judgment in Madras Bar Association case, the Central government came up with an ordinance to get over the ruling regarding service conditions of tribunal members without any proper debate in the house."Inspite of all that, in two days again ordinance was made. I haven’t come across any debate that has been made in Parliament. It is legislature's prerogative to make laws, but we must know reasons for making of this law, the reasons for making this legislation," Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said.The Court was hearing a plea by Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council challenging the validity of the Central government’s notification transferring the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur to DRT, Lucknow due to unavailability of a presiding officer at Jabalpur.Justice Surya Kant, the other judge on the Bench said the tribunals will become defunct if vacancies are not filled up.The Court maintained that while parliament has the power to make laws, there must some debate and discussion before the same is done. "Please show us this debate. This is a serious issue. (Should) tribunals continue or close down? This is the only important question," the Court said. .The CJI said that while the legislature is undoubtedly free to exercise its power to make laws and the executive is the best judge to decide policy matters, it is high time that a serious effort is made by all concerned to ensure that all the vacancies in the tribunals are filled up."We are not parliaments wisdom and powers. Ministry might have prepared a note for introducing the law. Can you show us," the CJI demanded. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government sought adjournment of the matter by two weeks to take instructions.He also pointed out that Attorney General KK Venugopal had been assisting the Court in this matter and the AG has not been keeping well. The Court, however, directed the Centre to fill up the vacancies in tribunals in ten days..The Parliament had passed the Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2021 laying down the tenures and other service conditions of tribunal members..However, many of the provisions of the Bill run contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court judgment regarding tenures of service of tribunal members.The Supreme Court had on July 14 struck down the newly inserted Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 (Ordinance) to the extent that it fixed the tenure of members and chairperson of tribunals at 4 years.The top court had ruled that Section 184(11) of the Finance Act, which prescribes a tenure of four years for members, was contrary to the principles of separation of powers, independence of judiciary, rule of law and Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the judgment of the apex court in the Madras Bar Association III case."Consequently, the declaration of this Court in para 53(iv) of (the judgment in) Madras Bar Association-III shall prevail and the term of Chairperson of a Tribunal shall be five years or till she or he attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier and the term of Member of a Tribunal shall be five years or till she or he attains the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier," the Supreme Court had ordered.However, as per Section 5 of the new Bill, the term of office of the Chairperson of a tribunal shall be four years or till the person attains age of 70, whichever is earlier. Similarly, for members of tribunals, the tenure has been prescribed as four years or till he/she attains 67 years, whichever is earlier."Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court, or in any law for the time being in force, — (i) the Chairperson of a Tribunal shall hold office for a term of four years or till he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier; (ii) the Member of a Tribunal shall hold office for a term of four years or till he attains the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier," Section 5 says.Likewise, the Court had in its July 2021 judgment held that fixing 50 years as minimum age for appointment is unconstitutional.However, the same reappears in the new Bill as proviso to Section 3..Similarly, the Supreme Court in its July 14 ruling had held that the provision relating to recommendation of two names for each post by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) and further, requiring the decision to be taken by the government preferably within three months, is violative of the Constitution.But the new Bill in Section 3(7) lays down the same."Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court, or in any law for the time being in force, the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall recommend a panel of two names for appointment to the post of Chairperson or Member, as the case may be, and the Central Government shall take a decision on the recommendations made by that Committee, preferably within three months from the date of such recommendation," the Bill says.Earlier, in November 2020, the Supreme Court in its judgment had ordered that the term of office of the Chairperson and tribunal members should be five years. The Court had also ordered some other modifications to the 2020 Rules in this regard.In order to get over the same, the government had introduced the 2021 Ordinance which kept the tenure at four years.This move was once again struck down in the July 2021 judgment, following which the present Bill was introduced..(Read Order)

[BREAKING] Show us parliamentary debates, reasons for passing Tribunal Reforms law to get over Madras Bar Assn. verdict: Supreme Court to Centre

Debayan Roy

Related Stories