Supreme Court Asks Why Centre Introduced Tribunals Reforms Bill With Provisions Struck Down By Court

The Supreme Court on Monday made critical remarks against the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2021 passed by the Parliament last week re-enacting the very same provisions struck down by the Court in Madras Bar Association case.

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India asked the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta why the bill was introduced with the provisions invalidated by the Court.

The bench also said that Centre was not following the repeated directions issued by the Court to ensure the proper functioning of the Tribunals.

"Inspite of all these (court directions), few days back we have seen, the ordinance which was struck down has been re-enacted. We are not commenting on the Parliament proceedings. Of course, the  legislature has prerogative to make laws. At least we must know why the government has introduced the bill despite being struck down by this Court", CJI NV Ramana observed.

The CJI referred to news-reports which quoted the statements made by Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman during the debate.

"The hon'ble minister has just said one sentence, that the court has not struck down the provisions on ground of unconstitutionality. What should we make of this bill? Should tribunals function or should be closed?", the CJI asked.

The CJI asked if the statement of reasons prepared by the Ministry can be shown to the Court.

"The Government introduced the bill. The Ministry must have prepared a note for reasons. Can you show us that?", CJI asked the SG.

The  Solicitor General replied that till the Bill has attained the status of an Act, it may not be proper on his part to respond.

"Until the Bill has matured into an Act, it may not be appropriate on my part to respond. So far as since validity is not in question, I'm not right now in a position to respond", the SG replied.

The SG added that the Attorney General for India KK Venugopal was appearing in the cases related to Tribunals. Therefore, the SG requested for time to consult with the AG as well to make a statement.

The bench made these observations while considering a case related to unfilled vacancies in Tribunals.

To know more about the Tribunal Reforms Bill and the background of Madras Bar Association case read this report :  Parliament Passes Tribunals Reforms Bill With Same Provisions Struck Down By Supreme Court

Court expresses concerns about unfilled vacancies

During the hearing, the bench expressed concerns about the vacancies remaining unfilled in Tribunals. The CJI read out to the Solicitor General certain observations from the judgment in the last year's Madras Bar Association case, where the Court had stressed on the need to keep Tribunals free of executive influence.

"Dispensation of justice by the Tribunals can be effective only when they function independent of any executive control:this renders them credible and generates public confidence. We have noticed a disturbing trend of the Government not implementing the directions issued by this Court", the CJI quoted from the Madras Bar Association judgment.

The CJI also quoted the following portions from the judgment which disapproved the practice of legislature making laws to nullify judgments.

"It is open to the legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not to say that a judgment of a Court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court".

During the previous hearing on August 6, the CJI had read out a chart of the vacancies of Tribunals and had observed that the Court is getting the impression that bureaucracy does not want the Tribunals to function.

When the Solicitor General sought for ten more days time to make a statement regarding the filling up of vacancies, the CJI said " We'd given last time number of vacancies also. If you wanted to appoint, nothing prevented you">

The Solicitor General stated that he has communicated the concerns of the Court to the Government and assured that substantive progress can be made within the next ten days. He further informed that the appointment was made in the Central Administrative Tribunal. He added that other appointments are "under process".

In response, the CJI said that the Court had been hearing the words "under process" for long.

"Whenever we ask what happened to appointments, it is said it is under process. The under process has no meaning. We will give you 10 days and hope appointments are made", the CJI said sternly.

"We're assured appointments are made under process. We are granting another 10 days tp government. Pendency of these matters should not come in way of appointment of members to Tribunals", the bench stated in the order while adjourning the matters after 10 days.