SC judgments touch policy decisions, must keep in mind separation of powers: AG to SC

New Delhi: Attorney General KK Venugopal Wednesday defended The Tribunals Reforms Act of 2021 in the Supreme Court and said that many times the top court through its judgements had waded into the policy domain and it should keep in mind separation of powers .

Many of the Supreme Court judgements have gone beyond its judicial ambit. We have said it is a policy decision yet the court went ahead with its judgement. Often the court has been laying policy decisions and telling the legislature to pass such and such laws. There is a separation of powers and it should be kept in mind," Venugopal told a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Bela M Trivedi.

The Attorney General was responding to the submission made by senior advocate Arvind Datar who said that despite the provisions of the Ordinance being struck down last year, the Centre has come out with an Act that has identical provisions which were struck down by a bench headed by Justice LN Rao.

He said that on July 14, last year the top court had by its 2:1 verdict upheld the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 but held as unconstitutional certain provisions related to terms of services of the chairperson, vice-chairperson and other members of tribunals.

On July 14, last year provisions were struck down and on July 28, last year they came out with an Act which had identical provisions. There are judgements of this court which says that a law cannot be brought without removing the basis of the judgement , Datar said.

The bench asked the Attorney General whether the Act would remain valid as it is similar to the Ordinance word to word whose provisions were struck down.

Venugopal said that he would need time to argue on the merit of the larger issue which is valid as he was not informed that the arguments will be made today.

The bench said that it would hear the arguments in July after the vacation on the validity of the law.

The bench then dealt with some applications relating to the appointments in the tribunals.

It sought to know from the Centre reasons for not appointing a member to Telecom Disputes and Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) despite his name being cleared by the selection committee.

The bench said, the court must be apprised of the reasons which weighed with the government for not appointing the applicant in pursuant to the vacancy notified in May 2020 the relevant files may be produced before the court .

Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said that he will produce the relevant document and submitted a note which stated that names were pending with the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet.