SC Invalidates Major Provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act 2021

SC Invalidates Major Provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act 2021

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Centre to constitute a national tribunals commission within four months as it struck down key provisions of the 2021 Tribunals Reforms law related to appointment, tenure and service conditions of tribunal members and presiding officers.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed concern about excessive executive control over tribunals and allowed the petitions that challenged certain provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021, which overhauled the functioning, structure and service conditions of tribunals across the country.

“We grant the Union of India a period of four months from the date of this judgement to establish a National Tribunals Commission,” the bench said.

1,500 Runners from 27 States and Abroad Participate in Kashmir Marathon 2025

“The creation of such a commission is an essential structural safeguard designed to ensure independence, transparency, and uniformity in the appointment, administration, and functioning of tribunals across the country,” the verdict said.

The challenges centred on Sections 3 to 7 and 33 of the Act, along with a series of amendments made to more than a dozen central statutes.

The CJI, who authored the 137-page judgment, specifically invalidated the provisions, and one of them was Section 3, which mandated a minimum age of 50 years for appointment as a chairperson or member of a tribunal.

The verdict held that this restriction arbitrarily excluded young and competent advocates and experts. It also set aside Section 5 of the Act, which fixed the tenure of chairpersons and members of tribunals at four years.

MoneyHero and Coinbase Jointly Publish Pulse of Crypto — Singapore 2025 Survey Report

Under Section 5, chairpersons are given a four-year tenure or to the age of 70, whichever is earlier. Members may serve for four years or up to 67 years of age.

The Act overrides earlier judgments prescribing longer tenures but contains a transitional clause: those appointed between May 26, 2017, and the notified date retain the longer tenure specified in their appointment order, capped at a maximum of five years.

The verdict reinstated the five-year tenure rule to ensure security of service and institutional independence.

It also set aside the selection procedure for appointments in tribunals under Section 3, and it required the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) to recommend a panel of two names for every vacancy.

For most tribunals, the SCSC is chaired by the CJI or a Supreme Court judge nominated by him.

The committee also includes two Union secretaries and one additional member, typically the outgoing or sitting chairperson of the tribunal, and if the sitting chairperson seeks reappointment, a retired Supreme Court judge or retired Chief Justice of a high court nominated by the CJI must serve as the additional member.

The bench ruled that the SCSC should recommend only one name per post to curb excessive executive discretion in appointments. The bench also did not approve Section 7 of the Act dealing with the service conditions.

It equated the allowances and service conditions of tribunal members with those of civil servants.

Section 6 allows re-appointment of chairpersons and members, with due consideration for services already rendered. Re-appointments must follow the same SCSC-based procedure as fresh appointments. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by VoM News staff and is published from the syndicated feed)