The Supreme Court (SC) on last Wednesday struck down multiple provisions of the TRIBUNAL ACT, 2021, holding that Parliament had effectively resurrected statutory provisions earlier invalidated by the Court and thereby committed an impressible act of “legislative override”, in a sweeping reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and judicial independence. It also sought the creation of a National Tribunals Commission to appoint people to tribunals.
The provisions struck down included the four-year tenure for tribunal members and the minimum entry age of 50.
Delivering a detailed and strongly reasoned judgment, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice KV Chandran held that 2021law “merely repackaged” what was struck down in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-V) case in July 2021, without curing the constitutional defects identified earlier. “ This amounts to a legislative override in the strictest sense: an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities. Such an approach is impermissible under our constitutional scheme”.
Reviving a long-pending institutional reform, the court also directed the Union Government to establish a national Tribunal Commission within four months as “ an essential structural safeguard” to ensure transparent appointments, uniform administration and independence from executive influence. The bench emphasized that piecemeal reforms could not cure systemic deficiencies that have the tribunal system for decades.
The Court said that “ The Indian Constitution subscribes to constitutional supremacy”, adding that once judicial pronouncements identify constitutional defects and lay down binding directions, Parliament cannot simple re-enact the same provision under a new label. Rejecting Attorney General’s argument that Parliament has wide latitude to legislate as it deemed fit.
A meticulous comparison of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021 (struck down earlier) and the subsequent Act revealed that Parliament “verbatim repeated” several provisions, including the minimum age of 50 for appointments, the uniform four-year tenure with upper age caps of 70 and 67, the directive that search-cum-selection committees forward a panel two names for every vacancy, and the linking of allowances and benefits to those of equivalent civil servants. These very measures, the bench pointed out, had already been held arbitrary, violative of judicial independence, and contrary to articles 14 and 50 of the constitution.
The bench also expressed “ strong displeasure with the Union government’s repeated refusal to implement judicial directions safeguarding the tribunal independence. It is indeed unfortunate that instead of giving effect to the well-established principles laid down by this Court on the question of independence and functioning of tribunals, the legislature has chose to re-enact or reintroduce provisions that reopen the same constitutional debates under enactment and rules. Respect for settled law is essential for good governance as well as judicial discipline”.
The Court held that norms laid down in MBA-IV and MBA-V… two cases involving the Madras Bar Association in 2020 and 2021—relating to tenure, age limits, selection processes and independence from executive control, represent binding constitutional standards. “They are not judicial preferences, they are constitutional requirements derived from Articles 323-A and 323-B, and the doctrine of powers”, the judgment said.
The present verdict comes nearly four years after the Court began hearing the latest round of petitions led by the madras Bar association challenging The Tribunal reforms Act, 2021. On 11th November, when the matter was reserved, the bench questioned the logic of fixing four-year tenure across all tribunals and rising the entry age to 50, warning that such provisions deterred the competent lawyers from joining and undermined institutional independence.
In the end, the Court declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional and reiterated that, until Parliament enacts a law that faithfully adheres to constitutional safeguards and standards laid down in previous judgment, the present ruling would remain the governing framework for all tribunals in India.
This case was one more such case, where who is stronger judiciary or legislature, came into picture.
Waiting for your views on this blog.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
24th November 2025.