Supreme Court strikes down Tribunals Ordinance provision fixing 4-year term for members

What is the News?

The Supreme Court in a 2:1 verdict has struck down certain provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance,2021.

What was the case?

• The judgement came on a petition by the Madras Bar Association, which challenged the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021 to the extent it amends Sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017.

Note: Sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017 gave Central Government rule-making power in relation to the mode of appointment, qualifications, terms of service, allowance of members of various tribunals.

Click Here to Read the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021

What are the provisions struck down by the Supreme Court?

Appointment:

• The Supreme Court has struck down the provisions requiring a minimum age for appointment as Chairperson or Members as 50 years and prescribing the tenure of four years.
• The court said that these provisions were contrary to the principles of separation of powers, independence of judiciary, rule of law, and Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Further, the court said that the term of Chairperson of a tribunal shall be five years or till she or he attains the age of 70, whichever is earlier. Further, the term of a Member of a tribunal shall be five years or till she or he attains the age of 67, whichever is earlier.

Appointment Duration:

• The provision prescribing that the Union Government should make appointments “preferably within three months” of recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection committee has been struck down.

Key Remarks made by the Supreme Court while delivering judgement:

• Impartiality, independence, fairness, and reasonableness in decision-making are the hallmarks of the judiciary.
• If impartiality is the soul of the judiciary, independence is the lifeblood of the judiciary. Hence, without independence, impartiality cannot thrive.
• The judge who dissented against the verdict said that the “courts can declare law, interpret law, remove obvious lacunae and fill up the gaps, but they cannot entrench upon in the field of legislation”.