Supreme Court To Hear Madras Bar Association's Challenge Against Tribunals Reforms Ordinance On June 2
The Supreme Court has on Monday adjourned to Wednesday, the plea filed by Madras Bar Association challenging the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization & Conditions Of Service)to the extent it amends section 184 and 186 of Finance Act 2017.A three-judge Bench of Justice Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ravindra Bhat was initially inclined to start hearing the...
The Supreme Court has on Monday adjourned to Wednesday, the plea filed by Madras Bar Association challenging the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization & Conditions Of Service)to the extent it amends section 184 and 186 of Finance Act 2017.
A three-judge Bench of Justice Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ravindra Bhat was initially inclined to start hearing the arguments today, however it later decided to adjourn the matter as all the Judges did not have all the compilations filed by the Counsels.
"Let it be one compilation instead of this. We have a serious problem, we have a system working, some papers are there but some papers are not there." Justice Rao said
"We have the whole day on Wednesday. Let us get all the papers in order, and we will start at 10:30 on Wednesday." the Bench said.
The Bench also asked Senior Advocate Datar to de-duplicate and ensure that there's no duplication.
"Let there be no duplication" Justice Bhat said
The Bench clarified that it is hearing this case only on the Ordinance, not on other applications. However , the Court added that if the counsels wish to supplement they may be given a short time.
The Bench also told the Counsels that it will have to complete hearing the arguments on Wednesday.
"We just have one day, please remember that." the Bench said.
After inquiring the time the Counsels will take to argue, the court decided to hear the case on Wednesday.
During the last hearing, the same Bench had decided to consider the plea challenging the Ordinance and pass orders Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had submitted on the last date of hearing, that in the present matter, there is a very strong case for stay of the ordinance, even though a stay is an extraordinary step. However, considering the fact that the Ordinance contravenes several binding precedents of the Supreme Court, Datar said that a stay is called for to bring "some kind of sanctity to the system".
"This isn't permissible and they cannot violate order of this court again and again. There's a limit to any kind of disobedience of the Court's orders. This is not the way a government can function." Datar had said.
Datar had also submitted that the ordinance need not be an impediment in continuing appointments. Whatever may be outcome of this ordinance, people appointed before this will continue.
It may be noted that in November last year, the Supreme Court, finding several faults with the 2020 Tribunal Rules, issued a slew of directions to modify them in an earlier case Madras Bar Association vs Union of India. Later, the Centre promulgated the 2021 Ordinance, purportedly in compliance with the SC directions. This Ordinance has been challenged by the Madras Bar Association contending that it violates the SC directions.