SC strikes down provisions of tribunal reforms law on tenure, appointment, service conditions

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Union government to set up a national tribunals commission within four months while striking down several provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021. The court said the invalidated provisions affected appointment procedures, service conditions and institutional independence of tribunal members and presiding officers.

A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the batch of petitions challenging Sections 3 to 7 and 33 of the 2021 law, as well as amendments made to more than a dozen central statutes. The bench noted that the Act conferred excessive control on the executive and altered key safeguards earlier recognised by the court.

“We grant the Union of India a period of four months from the date of this judgement to establish a National Tribunals Commission,” the bench said. According to the 137-page judgment authored by the Chief Justice, the commission would serve as “an essential structural safeguard designed to ensure independence,

transparency and uniformity in the appointment, administration and functioning of tribunals across the country”.

One of the primary provisions struck down was Section 3, which imposed a minimum age requirement of 50 years for appointment as chairperson or member of a tribunal. The court held that the restriction arbitrarily prevented eligible advocates and experts from entering tribunal service at a reasonable stage in their careers. It also set aside Section 5, which fixed the tenure of chairpersons and members at four years, with an upper age limit of 70 years for chairpersons and 67 for members.

The judgment noted that these provisions departed from earlier rulings that prescribed longer tenures to safeguard judicial independence. Although the Act allowed those appointed between May 26, 2017 and the date of notification to retain the longer tenure mentioned in their appointment orders, capped at five years, the court said uniformity was required. It reinstated the five-year tenure rule to restore service security.

The bench also invalidated the selection procedure under Section 3 that required the Search-cum-Selection Committee to recommend a panel of two names for each vacancy. For most tribunals, the committee is chaired by the Chief Justice of India or a judge nominated by him, along with two Union secretaries and an additional member. The court directed that only one name be recommended per post to prevent undue executive discretion.

Section 7, which linked allowances and service conditions of tribunal members to those of civil servants, was also not approved. The court noted that re-appointments under Section 6 must follow the same committee-based process used for fresh selections.