Relevance: Polity & Governance (UPSC GS-II); 

Source: Indian Express ;Supreme Court judgment; Tribunal Reforms Act developments

On November 19, the Supreme Court invalidated key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, holding that the government had reintroduced clauses earlier struck down by the Court. The SC emphasised that Parliament cannot nullify or bypass judicial decisions through “old wine in a new bottle”.

Tribunals and Their Significance 

Tribunals are specialised quasi-judicial bodies created for speedy and technical adjudication (e.g., NGT, CAT, ITAT).
They are established under Articles 323A & 323B, with safeguards under judicial independence, the basic structure doctrine, and separation of powers.

Since 2010, the SC—through several rulings—has repeatedly struck down provisions that dilute independence through:

• Short tenures
• Executive dominance in appointments
• Lack of security of tenure
• Bar on advocates below a certain age

The 2021 Act attempted to rationalise tribunals but reinstated many problematic provisions.

Why the Supreme Court Struck Down the Provisions

1. Executive Control Over Appointments

The Act allowed:

• Government secretaries (litigants in cases before tribunals) to be part of the selection committee.
• Short tenures of 3–4 years for tribunal members.
• Re-appointment dependent on government discretion.

SC held this violates judicial independence, as tribunals cannot function under executive pressure.

2. Re-enactment of Previously Struck-Down Provisions

The Court said:

“Parliament cannot resurrect what the Court has invalidated by merely changing the bottle, not the wine.”

This violated the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, since judicial review is a basic feature.

3. Undermining Separation of Powers

The Court noted that the scheme encouraged:

• Executive overreach
• Lack of impartiality
• Weakening of checks and balances

This violates Article 50, which directs separation of judiciary from executive.

Why the Government’s Measures Failed

Government argued it wanted:

• Efficiency
• Uniformity across tribunals
• Faster appointments

But the SC held that efficiency cannot come at the cost of independence.

What Is “Retrospective Rule-Making to Cure Defects”?

Sometimes Parliament can modify laws struck down by changing the underlying conditions.
But here, the SC said:

• The changes were cosmetic
• Core defects remained
• Hence, the law was unconstitutional

This strengthens the doctrine that Parliament cannot overrule the judiciary indirectly.

Tribunals: Key Constitutional Principles

Way Forward

• Make independent selection committees with judicial majority
• Provide fixed, secure tenure (5–7 years)
• Ensure uniform service conditions, similar to High Court judges
• Strengthen the National Tribunals Commission idea (proposed earlier)
• Avoid repeated litigation through constitutional-compliant law-making

One-line Wrap: The SC’s ruling reiterates that tribunal independence is non-negotiable and cannot be compromised through repeated legislative redesign.

UPSC Mains Question

“Discuss the constitutional safeguards ensuring independence of tribunals in India. Why has the Supreme Court repeatedly struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act?”