Supreme Court on New Bill on Tribunals
A bill seeking to abolish as many as nine appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), was approved by Parliament with the Rajya Sabha passing the proposed legislation Monday.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana put the government on the dock about the complete absence of material justifying the Bill and also the lack of proper debate in the Parliament before it was made into law.
The Bill had replaced the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021. The provisions in the ordinance regarding conditions of service and tenure of Tribunal Members and Chairpersons were struck down by the Supreme Court. However, the same provisions re-appeared in the Tribunal Reforms Bill introduced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on August 2 in the Lok Sabha.
The Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha by voice vote without a debate amid protests by the Opposition parties over the Pegasus controversy and other laws. The Rajya Sabha cleared the Bill on August 9.
The newspaper reported the concerns over the Bill-
“Show us one appointment that you have made… Whenever we ask the Ministry about tribunal appointments, you say it is ‘under process’… If you want to make appointments, nothing prevents you from appointing… Till yesterday, we did not hear anything about any appointments to tribunals,” the CJI voiced the court’s scepticism.
The CJI repeated his question whether the government was moving towards closing down the tribunals… “We have a simple question for you… Are you planning to continue with the tribunals or close them down? Everything comes down to this question,” Chief Justice Ramana addressed the government.
The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021 and the Writ
- The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021 was introduced in Lok Sabha in February. As the Bill was pending at the end of the session, an Ordinance with similar provisions was promulgated in April.
- Under the Finance Act, 2017, new Rules were notified on June 30, 2021. The Rules allow advocates with 10 years’ relevant experience eligible for appointment as judicial members and provide details on house rent allowance for members.
- The Ordinance and the Rules were challenged in the Supreme Court. The Court struck down provisions related to the four-year tenure and the minimum age requirement of 50 years for members of tribunals
The Madras Bar Association filed writ petition seeking a declaration that Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and 186 (2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 ultra vires Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as these are violative of the principles of separation of powers and independence of judiciary, apart from being contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association1, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr, Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited & Ors.3 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr.
Supreme Court held that it is high time that a serious effort is made by all concerned to ensure that all the vacancies in the tribunals are filled up without delay. Access to justice and confidence of the litigant public in impartial justice being administered by tribunals need to be restored.
Image source: Aakashlaw.com
