Case Name – Madras Bar Association v. Union of India
Case Number – WP(c) 1018 OF 2021
Day – Wednesday, Nineteenth Day of November, Two Thousand and Twenty – Five
Quorum – Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
FACTS
The Madras Bar Association (MBA) challenged the constitutionality of some of the legally binding provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 (Impugned Act) because they believed that Parliament simply reintroduced provisions already invalidated by the Supreme Court in MBA (V) without addressing the root cause of the issue. The matters put under scrutiny were primarily based on the stipulations of the methods of governing the appointment process, the age eligibility, term, and executive influence on the tribunals. The petitioners claimed that these provisions, regardless of being repeatedly directed by the judicial authorities, still eroded the independence of the tribunals and weakened the separation of powers. The Union represented the Act with an explanation that the Parliament can not be bound by the judicial directions. During the litigation, the Court observed that the Union failed to implement previous directions on multiple occasions, and long periods of vacancies in tribunals and inconsistent appointments such as the appointment of ITAT in 2021 despite the authorities having been approved in the years 2019, contrary to its previous commitments.
ISSUES
- Whether the Parliament can re – enact provisions previously struck down without curing the constitutional defects.
- Whether the Impugned Act violated the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers.
- Whether provisions relating to appointments, tenure, age criteria, and Search – cum – Selection Committees (SCSC) conform to constitutional requirements.
- Whether judicial directions under Article 141 and 142 bind the legislature when enacting laws concerning tribunals.
- Whether the reference to a larger bench was justified.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 – States the binding nature of the Supreme Court decisions on all the Courts.
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 – Allows the Supreme Court to exercise executive and legislative functions to do complete justice.
- Articles 323 A and 323 B of the Constitution of India, 1950 (42nd amendment, 1976) – Establishment of tribunals to adjudicate disputes outside the traditional Court system.
- Section 3 of Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 – Governing qualifications, appointments, eligibility, SCSC structure of the Chairperson and Members of Tribunal.
- Section 4 of Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 – Removal of Chairperson and Members of Tribunal.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONERS – The petitioners argued that the Impugned Act restored provisions virtually identical to those struck down in MBA(V), particularly regarding the age limits, tenure, and the requirement that SCSC recommended a panel of two names. They stated that these provisions violated Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India, 1950, by compromising tribunal independence. They relied on the judgments of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others [(1997) 3 SCC 261], Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited [(2020) 6 SCC 1], and Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association [(2010) 11 SCC 1] and earlier MBA decisions which stated that short tenures, high age thresholds and executive presence in SCSC were recognised as constitutionally impermissible.
RESPONDENTS – the Union argued that the Parliament is free to legislate even contrary to judicial directions, subject only to constitutional limits, and that judicial directions in MBA (IV) were mere suggestions. It asserted that minimum age and tenure are matters of policy and legislative wisdom. The Attorney General argued that the Court cannot dictate the legislature’s choices and requested a reference to a larger bench claiming substantial constitutional issues. The Union also defended the panel – based recommendation system and executive participation in the SCSC as necessary for administrative efficiency.
ANALYSIS
The Court reiterated that judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution and forms the constitutional benchmark for assessing tribunal legislation. The Court held that although Parliament has the authority to depart from earlier judicial directions, it may do so only by removing the constitutional flaws identified by the Court, not by reproducing the very provisions that were previously struck down. On comparison of the provisions of the Ordinance of 2021 along with the Impugned Act, the Court found that several provisions were repeated.
In addition, the Court emphasised the principles of separation of powers, judicial independence and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India are not mere concepts but constitutional obligatory provisions. Drawing on its reasoning in M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 212] and K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2017) 10 SCC 1], the Court reiterated that once a constitutional norm is defined by the judiciary, it becomes obligatory for all branches of government to operate within that degree.
The Union’s plea for reference to a larger Bench was rejected because the issues had already been settled in prior Constitution Bench judgments, and no new constitutional question arose.
JUDGEMENT
The Apex Court struck down the provisions of the Impugned Act that were a verbatim repetition of those invalidated earlier, including those relating to age threshold, tenure, and panel – based recommendation system. It held that the Parliament violated Articles 141 and 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950. by re – enacting provisions that undermined judicial independence without curing defects. The Court protected the appointments already being made where SCSC recommendations pre – dated the Act and clarified that ITAT appointments made in 2021 must be governed by the earlier regime. Ultimately the writ petitions were disposed of with detailed directions to restore constitutional compliance.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court once again reaffirmed that tribunal independence is a constitutional imperative and cannot be diluted through repeated legislative re – enactments of provisions already struck down. The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 was invalidated to the extent that it revived defects earlier held unconstitutional, particularly those undermining tenure security, appointment processes, and judicial control within tribunals. The judgment reinforces that legislative policy must operate within constitutional boundaries, and any attempt to bypass settled principles of judicial independence will not withstand scrutiny.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- SUSMITA ROYCHOWDHURY
Click here to read more: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India
