Supreme Court: In a case wherein the validity of the key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (‘Impugned Act’) has been challenged, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ.* and K. Vinod Chandra, J., stated that the Impugned Act directly contradicts binding judicial pronouncements that have repeatedly clarified the standards governing the appointment, tenure, and functioning of tribunal members. The Court stated that merely reproducing the very provisions which were earlier struck down, amounts to a legislative override, which is an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities. Accordingly, the Court struck down the impugned provisions as unconstitutional.
The Court further granted the Union of India a period of four months to establish a National Tribunals Commission, which must adhere to the principles concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system.
Background
In the present case, vires of the following provisions has been challenged on various grounds:
-
Section 3 of the Impugned Act, empowering the Central Government to frame rules on the qualifications, appointments, salaries, allowances, and service conditions of the Chairperson and Members of Tribunals, notwithstanding anything in prior judgments or existing laws. Appointments were to be made by the Central Government on the recommendation of a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
-
Section 4 of the Impugned Act, which states that the Central Government may remove a Chairperson or Member of a Tribunal on the recommendation of the prescribed Committee and in the manner laid down by rules.
-
Section 5 of the Impugned Act stipulating that, despite anything contained in earlier judgments or existing laws, the Chairperson of a Tribunal shall serve for a tenure of four years or until attaining the age of seventy years, whichever occurs earlier.
-
Section 6 of the Impugned Act providing that the Chairperson and Members of a Tribunal may be considered for re-appointment in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
-
Section 7 of the Impugned Act empowering the Central Government to frame rules prescribing the salary of the Chairperson and Members of a Tribunal.
Further, the Impugned Act also amends multiple statutes, including the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Cinematograph Act, 1952, Copyright Act, 1957 etc. In these Acts, references to earlier tribunal provisions under the Finance Act, 2017 are replaced with references to the Impugned Act. For National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the qualifications, appointments, tenure, salaries, and removal of members appointed after the Impugned Act, are now governed entirely by the Impugned Act.
It was contended that several provisions of the Impugned Act, particularly Sections 3(1), 3(7), 5, and 7(1), violate the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. By diluting the judiciary’s role in appointments, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members, these provisions infringe the basic structure and contravene Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution, as well as binding decisions of the Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
A. Historical Trajectory
-
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124
In the said case, constitutional validity of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was challenged. It was held that the Chairman of the Tribunal is to be treated on par with that of a Chief Justice of a High Court. Hence, the post should be filled by a retiring/retired Chief Justice, or if unavailable, by a senior judge of proven ability, serving or retired. Further, regarding a tenure of only five years, it was held that it could act as a deterrent to attracting competent candidates.
-
R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 119
In the said case, the complaint concerning the functioning of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal was dealt with. It was reiterated that the individuals appointed to such tribunals exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions and must possess a judicial approach along with adequate knowledge and expertise in relevant branches of constitutional, administrative, and tax law.
-
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261
The judgment in S.P. Sampath Kumar (supra) was reconsidered in the present case. It was held that the High Courts’ power of judicial superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court declared Article 323A(2)(d) and Article 323B(3)(d) of Constitution as unconstitutional insofar as they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
-
Union of India v. Madras Bar Association, (2010) 11 SCC 1 (‘MBA(I)’)
In the said case, it was held that the public perception of independence, impartiality, and fairness of members is crucial. The Technical Members of Company Law Tribunals must have expertise in company law or related fields, and mere civil service experience does not constitute such expertise. The assumption that the judges lack the necessary skills or that civil servants or professionals from unrelated fields like science or medicine are qualified was also rejected. It was held that the inclusion of technical experts is justified only in areas requiring specialized professional knowledge.
-
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1 (‘MBA(II)’)
In the said case, the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 was declared unconstitutional for diluting the independence of the judiciary and tribunals. It was held that allowing the Central Government to determine the jurisdiction, composition, and transfer of National Tax Tribunal benches compromised judicial independence, since the Government itself would be a litigant in all cases before the Tribunal.
-
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2015) 8 SCC 583 (‘MBA(III)’)
In the said case, Sections 409(3)(a) and (c) and 411(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 were declared invalid. It was held that the earlier decision had cautioned against the gradual erosion of judicial independence through dilution of qualifications and standards for those exercising judicial functions.
-
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd, (2020) 6 SCC 1
In the said case, validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 was upheld. However, the Court struck down “Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017” (‘2017 Rules’), observing that the said Rules weakened the independence of tribunals by allowing excessive executive control. Subsequently, Union government notified the “Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities [Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members] Rules, 2020” (‘2020 Rules’).
-
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 369 (‘MBA(IV)’)
The constitutional validity of the 2020 Rules was challenged. It was noted that the 2020 Rules replicate the 2017 Rules in respect of the Constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committees, insofar as they do not ensure judicial dominance. The 2020 Rules are not in compliance with the principles established in MBA (I) and Rojer Mathew (supra). After the decision in MBA (IV), the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 (‘2021 Ordinance’).
-
Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 455 (‘MBA(V)’)
The validity the 2021 Ordinance and Sections 184 and 186(2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the 2021 Ordinance was challenged. The second and third provisos to Section 184(1) were held unconstitutional.
B. Validity of the impugned Act
Regarding whether the Impugned Act merely repackaged what was struck down in MBA (V) case, without curing its defects, the Court stated that on a comparison of the provisions of the 2021 Ordinance with the Impugned Act, it is observed that several provisions are verbatim repeated. The wording, structure, and legal effect remain the same in both versions, with only minor formatting or clarificatory differences.
Further, the amendments made through the 2021 Ordinance to the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 were retained in full within the Impugned Act. The Court observed that what 2021 Ordinance did through amendments to Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, the Impugned Act does through Sections 3, 5, and 7. Merely shifting the same content does not cure the constitutional defects, it simply re-enacts them in another avatar. Therefore, the impugned Act does not “cure” the law declared earlier but consciously defies it.
The Court stated that the Impugned Act directly contradicts binding judicial pronouncements that have repeatedly clarified the standards governing the appointment, tenure, and functioning of tribunal members. The Court stated that merely reproduces the very provisions earlier struck down, amounts to a legislative override, an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities. Accordingly, the Court struck down the impugned provisions as unconstitutional.
C. Conclusion
The Court stated that the repeated re-enactment of the same provisions, which have been struck down, shows that the “form of the administration” is being made “inconsistent” with the spirit of the Constitution. Expressing its disapproval of the manner in which the Union has repeatedly chosen to not accept the directions of this Court, the Court stated that it is unfortunate that instead of giving effect to the well-established principles, the legislature has chosen to re-enact the provisions that re-open the same constitutional debates. In a judicial system already burdened with a staggering pendency, the continued recurrence of such issues consumes valuable judicial time that could otherwise be used to adjudicate matters of public and constitutional importance.
The Court directed that unless the constitutional concerns repeatedly highlighted by this Court are fully addressed and cured, and unless an appropriate legislation that faithfully gives effect to those principles are enacted, the principles and directions laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V) shall continue to govern all matters relating to the appointment, qualifications, tenure, service conditions, and allied aspects concerning tribunal members and chairpersons.
The Court further granted the Union of India a period of four months to establish a National Tribunals Commission, which must adhere to the principles concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system.
The Court clarified and directed that the service conditions of all such Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who were appointed by orders dated 11-9-2021 and 1-10-2021 shall be governed by the old Act and the old Rules. Further, all appointments of Members and Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation was completed before the commencement of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, but whose formal appointment notifications were issued after the Act came into force, shall be protected. Such appointments will continue to be governed by the parent statutes and by the conditions of service as laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V).
Concurring with the reasoning and directions, K. Vinod Chandra, J., opined that the Impugned Act is a replica of the struck down Rules, as it is like an old wine in a new bottle, the wine whets not the judicial palette, but the bottle merely dazzle.
[Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 1018 of 2021, decided on 19-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Chief Justice B.R. Gavai
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Arvind P Datar, Sr. Adv.; T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR; Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv.; Naveen Hegde, Adv.; Siddharth Vasudev, Adv.; Gayatri Gulati, Adv.; Brahma Prakash Soni, Adv.; C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv.; Pramod Dayal, AOR; Nikunj Dayal, Adv.
For the Respondents: R Venkatramani, Attorney General for India; Tushar Mehta, S.G.; K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.; Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G.; Kanu Agarwal, Adv.; Saurabh Mishra, Adv.; Vanshaja Shukla, Adv.; Priyanka Das, Adv.; Chinmayee Chandra, Adv.; Rajat Nair, Adv.; Siddhanth Kohli, Adv.; Suhashini Sen, Adv.; Shradha Deshmukh, Adv.; Mayank Pandey, Adv.; Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR; Sonali Jain, Adv.; Kartikay Agarwal, Adv.; Rajat Nair, Adv.; Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv.; Chitvan Sinhal, Adv.; Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv.; Mukesh Kr. Singh, Adv.; Raman Yadav, Adv.; Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv.; Abhishek Kr. Pandey, Adv.; Keshav C Thakur, Adv.; Jagdish Chandra, Adv.; S.N. Terdal (aor), Sr. Adv.; Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR; Aman Mehta, Adv.; Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.; Arkaj Kumar, Adv.; Naman Tandon, Adv.; Rajat Nair, Adv.; Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.; Aditya Archiya, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR; Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR; Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.; Sakshi Kakkar, AOR; Shakti Singh, Adv.; Khushagra, Adv.; Anusha Rathore, Adv.; Tanvi Dubey, Adv.; Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv.; Samarvir Singh, Adv.; Naman Tandon, Adv.; Anshul, Adv.; Neetu Singh, Adv.; Shubham Yadav, Adv.; Vanya Gupta, AOR ; Archit Upadhayay, AOR ; Aishwarya Bhati, ASG ; Sonali Jain, Adv. ; Ritika Singhal, Adv. ; Garima Bajaj, AOR ; Kartik Seth, Adv. ; Shilpa Saini, Adv. ; Raghav Sharma, Adv. ; Shubhankar Singh, Adv. ; Lakshmikant Srirvastava, Adv. ; K. M. Abish, Adv. M/s Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR ; Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. ; Sakshi Kakkar, AOR ; Anusha Rathore, Adv. ; Tanvi Dubey, Adv. Dr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. ; S.A. Singh, Adv. ; Mathews Joseph Nedumpara, Adv. Intervenor-in-person ; Jasmeet Singh, AOR ; Siddharth Sangal, AOR ; Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. ; Manoj Kumar Mishra, Adv. ; Vinay Kumar Rai, Adv. ; Rajshree Rai, Adv. ; Modoyia Kayina, Adv. ; Farhat Naim, Adv. ; Shrayansh Singh, Adv. ; Paras Chauhan, Adv. ; Parimal Rai, Adv. ; Virendra Singh, Adv. M/s R And R Law Associates, AOR ; Vineet Bhagat, Adv. ; Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. ; Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. ; A.R.Takkar, Sr. Adv. ; Narender Pal Singh, Adv.; Daleep Dhyani, Adv. ; Abhishek Yadav, AOR ; Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Adv. ; Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. ; Saurabh Yadav, Adv. ; Abhishek Yadav, AOR ; K. S. Rana, AOR Dr. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. ; Anurag Nagar, Adv. ; Rajeev Deora, Adv. ; Mohan Singh, Adv. ; Shiv Nath Bind, Adv. ; Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. ; Sohum Dua, Adv. ; Abhyudaya Bajpai, Adv. ; Disha Jham, AOR ; Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. ; Mahesh Thakur, AOR ; Anchit Singla, Adv. ; Narveer Yadav, Adv. ; Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. ; Porus F Kaka, Sr. Adv. Dr. K Shivaram, Sr. Adv. ; K Gopal, Adv. ; Manish Paliwal, AOR ; Rahul Hakani, Adv. ; Paras Savla, Adv. ; Manish Kant, Adv. ; Ajay Singh, Adv. ; Megha Yadav, Adv. ; Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. ; Dushyant Pratap Singh, Adv. ; Vipasha Singh, AOR ; B.M. Chatterji, Sr. Adv. ; Mahesh Thakur, AOR ; Shreyash Shah, Adv. ; Narveer Yadav, Adv. ; Pallavi Langar, AOR ; P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. ; Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. ; Ninad Laud, Adv. ; Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. ; Neelam Sharma, AOR ; Alekshendra Sharma, Adv.; Aditya Kumar, Adv. ; Zubin Dash, Adv. ; S K Bagaria, Sr. Adv. ; Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR ; Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, AOR ; Radhika Gautam, AOR ; Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR ; Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR ; Archit Upadhayay, AOR ; Garima Bajaj, AOR M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR ; Sakshi Kakkar, AOR ; Jasmeet Singh, AOR ; Siddharth Sangal, AOR M/S R And R Law Associates, AOR ; K. S. Rana, AOR ; Disha Jham, AOR ; Manish Paliwal, AOR ; Pallavi Langar, AOR ; Neelam Sharma , AOR ; Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR ; Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, AOR ; Radhika Gautam, AOR ; Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. ; Naman Tandon, AOR ; Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. ; Shubham Jaiswal, Adv. ; Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv. ; Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR
Buy Constitution of India HERE
