'We Can't Stop Passing Of Legislation' : Supreme Court Refuses Discussion On Tribunals Reforms Bill 2021
"We can't stop passing of legislation, the government cannot stop us from passing orders. This is the duty of both institutions." CJI NV Ramana remarked on Friday. The remarks came from CJI NV Ramana after Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta expressed his objection to the Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2021 recently passed by the Lok Sabha. Referring to the Tribunal Reforms Bill, Senior Counsel...
"We can't stop passing of legislation, the government cannot stop us from passing orders. This is the duty of both institutions." CJI NV Ramana remarked on Friday.
The remarks came from CJI NV Ramana after Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta expressed his objection to the Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2021 recently passed by the Lok Sabha.
Referring to the Tribunal Reforms Bill, Senior Counsel Nidhesh Gupta appearing for State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, argued that the reforms introduced are again in violation of what the top court has laid down in the Madras Bar Association case.
He added that even after that judgement which said that 'we are aghast at what is happening' , the same mistakes have been reiterated in the new bill as well.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, objected to discussing the Bill in the Court as it is before the Parliament.
"Its in the Parliament, we can't discuss it here", SG said.
The bench then cut short the discussion on the pending bill and posted the matter to August 2016. During the hearing, the bench expressed concerns about the mounting vacancies in tribunals across the country and sought response from the Centre.
The Tribunal Reforms Bill 2021 ("Bill") was passed in the Lok Sabha on 3rd August, amid opposition demanding further discussion on the Bill. The Bill seeks to provide for uniform terms and conditions of the various members of the Tribunal and abolish certain tribunals, as a part of its bid to rationalise the tribunals.
In July 2021, the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India had struck down the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance requiring a minimum age of 50 years for appointment as chairperson or members and prescribing the tenure of four years. It held that such conditions are violative of the principles of separation of powers, independence of judiciary, rule of law and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
However, under the proviso to Section 3, the minimum age requirement of 50 years still finds a place in the Bill. Similarly, the tenure for the Chairperson and the members of the tribunal remains four years.
The Bench was hearing the following two pleas:
1. Plea by State Bar Council of MP against Delhi High Court's order, deferring by 6 weeks the challenge to validity and legality of the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Finance that transferred & attached the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in the absence of availability of presiding officer at DRT Jabalpur.
2. Plea filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions for constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal , New Delhi, on utmost priority basis and as early as possible, in the interest of justice.
The matters will be heard next on August 16.
Also happened during the hearing : 'CGST Act Came 4 Years Ago' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre Over Non-Creation Of GST Appellate Tribunal
(Case titles : State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India, Amit Sahni vs Union of India).