Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

The Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, leading to renewed tension between the judiciary and the executive over control and independence of tribunals.

About Tribunals

About: A Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body, established under an act of Parliament or State Legislature, to adjudicate disputes or complaints.
Judicial Authority: Tribunals hold civil court powers in specific cases.
Natural Justice: They ensure fairness by following natural justice over rigid legal procedures.
Constitutional Basis: Article 323A (Administrative Tribunals) and 323B (Tribunals for other matters).
Purpose: To provide specialised, speedy justice in areas like taxation, service, and corporate disputes.
Administrative Control: Currently exercised by the Ministry of Finance and Law, not the judiciary.
Key Judgments:
- L. Chandra Kumar (1997): Held tribunals subject to judicial review by High Courts.
- Rojer Mathew (2019): Struck down Finance Act rules undermining judicial independence.
- Madras Bar Association (2021): Invalidated short tenure and high minimum age provisions.

Key Features of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

Abolition of Tribunals: Eight tribunals, including the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, were dissolved and their functions shifted to High Courts.
Tenure of Members: Chairpersons and members given a 4-year term with a reappointment option, currently under SC review.
Minimum Age: Set 50 years as the minimum age for appointment, excluding younger legal professionals.
Selection Committee: A centralised panel led by a SC Judge or Chief Justice oversees appointments to national and state tribunals.
Removal Process: Members can resign or be removed by the government after inquiry by a SC Judge on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity.
Appeal: Appeals from tribunal orders now lie with High Courts, replacing separate appellate bodies.

Supreme Court Observations on the Act

Legislative Overreach: Reintroducing 4-year tenure and 50-year age (Madras Bar Association, 2021) may override SC rulings.
Judicial Independence: Short tenure with reappointment risks executive influence (Rojer Mathew, 2019).
Timing Tactics: SC worried about last-minute adjournments delaying hearings.
Delays in Justice: As of December 2022, 24 out of 32 posts were vacant in the National Company Law Tribunal, and 18 out of 63 in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Separation of Powers: Tribunals cannot have rules that weaken judicial autonomy.

Way Forward

Ensure Judicial Primacy: Follow the Rojer Mathew (2019) and Madras Bar Association (2021) judgments, which mandate judicial control over appointments.
Institutional Reform: Create a National Tribunals Commission (as suggested by the SC in L. Chandra Kumar, 1997) to oversee appointments, tenure, and service conditions independently.
Transparency: Adopt uniform selection procedures and publish tribunal performance reports annually. E.g. The UK Judicial Appointments Commission conducts open recruitment and performance audits
Reduce Vacancies: The Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) follows a statutory 90-day vacancy-filling timeline, ensuring continuity of service delivery.

As Justice P.N. Bhagwati once observed, “Judicial independence is the lifeblood of constitutional governance.” The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, must uphold this spirit by ensuring autonomy, transparency, and efficiency in India’s quasi-judicial system.

Reference: Indian Express | PMFIAS: Tribunals in India

PMF IAS Pathfinder for Mains – Question 417

Q. Do the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, align with the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence? Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court observations. (250 Words) (15 Marks)

Approach

Introduction: Write a brief introduction about the tribunals & mention the Supreme Court observations.
Body: Write key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, mention the Supreme Court observation about the Act and the way forward.
Conclusion: Emphasis on the balanced approach to uphold the constitutional provision.