Supreme Court asks Centre to explain why it introduced Bill with provisions that have been struck down

New Delhi: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana on Monday sought an explanation from the Centre on its decision to enact a Bill with provisions that were earlier struck down by the Supreme Court, Live Law reported.

On August 9, Rajya Sabha passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021. The Lok Sabha had passed the Bill on August 3.

Two of the Bill's provisions regarding appointment criteria for members of tribunal bodies in India were the same as in an Ordinance introduced by the government on the matter. These provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court on July 14 in a separate case.

Tribunals are legal bodies that settle administrative and tax-related disputes. Central Administrative Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunal, Securities Appellate Tribunal are some of the examples.

On Monday, a Bench led by Ramana was hearing a case related to filling up vacancies in various tribunals in the country. During the hearing, the Chief Justice asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta why the Bill was introduced with provisions that have been invalidated by the court.

"We are not commenting on the Parliament proceedings... Of course, the legislature has the prerogative to make laws," Ramana said, according to Live Law.

"At least we must know why the government has introduced the Bill despite being struck down by this court."

Ramana asked Mehta if he could present the official statement of reasons prepared by the government for introducing the Bill. To this, Mehta, representing the Centre, said it would not be proper for him to respond on the matter till the Bill attained the status of an Act.

He also requested time to consult with Attorney General KK Venugopal before making a statement on the matter.

In July, while hearing a case related to the Madras Bar Association, the Supreme Court had struck down two provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.

The Ordinance had fixed the term of tribunal members at four years. However, the court held that the tenure should be of at least five years as it ensured more efficiency, according to Live Law.

The court also struck down the eligibility criterion that members should be at least 50 years of age. The court, instead, held that advocates with a minimum experience of 10 years should be made eligible for appointments as tribunal members.

With agency inputs