SC junks parts of tribunal law, cites ‘override’

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down multiple provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, holding that Parliament had effectively resurrected statutory provisions earlier invalidated by the court and thereby committed an impermissible act of “legislative override”, in a sweeping reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and judicial independence.

- Utkarsh Anand and Abraham Thomas

It also sought the creation of a National Tribunals Commission to appoint people to tribunals.

The provisions struck down included the four-year tenure for tribunal members and the minimum entry age of 50.

Delivering a detailed and strongly reasoned judgment, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that the 2021 law “merely repackaged” what was struck down in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-V) case in July 2021, without curing any constitutional defects identified earlier.

“This amounts to a legislative override in the strictest sense: an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities. Such an approach is impermissible under our constitutional scheme,” declared the bench while reading out the operative portion.

Reviving a long-pending institutional reform, the court also directed the Union government to establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months as “an essential structural safeguard” to ensure transparent appointments, uniform administration and independence from executive influence. The bench emphasised that piecemeal reforms could not cure systemic deficiencies that have the tribunal system for decades.

The court's 137-page judgment underscored that India's constitutional framework does not recognise parliamentary supremacy in the British sense. "The Indian Constitution subscribes to constitutional supremacy," said the court, adding that once judicial pronouncements identify constitutional defects and lay down binding directions, Parliament cannot simply re-enact the same provisions under a new label.

"Merely restating or repackaging an invalidated provision does not amount to curing the defect," noted the bench, rejecting Attorney General R Venkatarmani's argument that Parliament has wide latitude to legislate as it deemed fit.