Introduction

Tribunals were established to reduce case pendency and offer specialized adjudication. However, the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and earlier ordinances have led to repeated confrontations between the judiciary and the executive. The heart of the issue is who controls tribunal appointments, tenure, and conditions of service, key determinants of their independence.

Why in the News

The Supreme Court’s hearing of petitions challenging the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, has revived tensions between the judiciary and the executive. The Act reintroduced provisions similar to those struck down in 2021, raising serious questions on legislative overreach and separation of powers.
The friction highlights a persistent constitutional conflict, whether the government can re-legislate provisions nullified by the judiciary, thereby potentially undermining judicial independence.

Legislative-Judicial Tug of War

1. Recurring Conflict: The 2021 Act was re-enacted despite similar provisions being struck down in the Madras Bar Association cases.
2. Old Tussle: The conflict dates back to the Finance Act, 2017, which merged and restructured tribunals, transferring appointment powers to the executive.
3. Judicial Stand: The Supreme Court, through Rojer Mathew v. Union of India (2019), emphasized that executive control compromises judicial independence.

Why Tribunals Matter

1. Quasi-judicial bodies: Provide speedy, specialized dispute resolution in fields such as taxation, company law, and environmental regulation.
2. Caseload reduction: Designed to reduce the burden on High Courts and the Supreme Court.
3. Constitutional relevance: Operate within the framework of Articles 323A and 323B, upholding efficiency while ensuring justice.

Key Provisions under Scrutiny

1. Four-year tenure: Petitioners argued that short tenures for tribunal members increase executive dependence and curb independence.
2. Minimum age of 50: Limits the entry of younger judges and advocates, discouraging fresh perspectives.
3. Centre’s ordinance powers: By re-promulgating similar provisions struck down earlier, the executive bypassed judicial verdicts, violating separation of powers.
4. Judicial recommendation ignored: Despite the Supreme Court’s suggestion for five-year terms and reduced executive control, the Centre retained earlier structures.

Centre’s Counter-arguments

1. Efficiency claim: The Union Government maintained that its framework ensures administrative uniformity and timely appointments.
2. Vacancy delays: The government cited delays due to tribunal restructuring, e.g., 22 vacancies each in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) as of 2022.
3. Assurance of autonomy: Claimed that the Act “balances independence with accountability,” keeping tribunals within executive purview but without judicial interference.

The Larger Constitutional Question

1. Judicial Independence: Re-enactment of struck-down provisions challenges the finality of judicial pronouncements under Article 141.
2. Separation of Powers: Raises concerns over legislative encroachment into the judicial domain.
3. Checks and Balances: Highlights the tension between Parliament’s sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.

Broader Implications for Governance

1. Precedent for defiance: If sustained, it may embolden future legislations to circumvent judicial review.
2. Public trust erosion: Undermines citizen confidence in the impartiality of quasi-judicial institutions.
3. Administrative justice: Weakens the intent behind tribunals to provide independent, expert, and speedy justice.

Conclusion

The discord over tribunals reflects a larger struggle for institutional balance in India’s democracy. While the Centre seeks administrative control, the judiciary insists on independence as the bedrock of rule of law. The resolution of this dispute will determine how India upholds the integrity of constitutional institutions in the years ahead.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2018] How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India.

Linkage: The question directly relates to the ongoing SC-Centre conflict over the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. This relates to the understanding of Articles 323A & 323B, judicial independence, and the balance between tribunal efficiency and constitutional validity.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now