Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran directed the Union Government to establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months, holding that the executive is constitutionally bound to create the body as earlier mandated. Deciding the challenge brought in the Madras Bar Association matter, the Court invalidated the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and addressed the broader dispute concerning executive control over appointments, tenure, and administration of tribunals. The Court concluded that the existing framework compromised institutional independence and required immediate corrective action, directing the Government to adhere to prior judicial standards and ensure that the tribunal system functions in alignment with constitutional principles.

The matter arose from challenges to the legislative framework governing tribunals in India, primarily brought by a petitioner Association seeking judicial scrutiny of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and related amendments to the Finance Act, 2017. The dispute centred on the structure, composition, appointment process, service conditions and administrative control of various national tribunals. The petitioner contended that multiple statutory provisions altered or reintroduced mechanisms previously examined by the Court in earlier decisions concerning tribunal independence. The petitioner argued that key aspects of appointments, including minimum age for selection, short tenure, reappointment processes, and the role of the executive in Search-cum-Selection Committees, contradicted settled directions issued in prior judgments on tribunal reforms.

Also Read: Supreme Court Bars Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge Posts; Issues Guidelines On Seniority In Higher Judicial Service

The petitioners submitted that several features of the impugned legislation granted the executive substantive discretion over qualifications, tenure, allowances and administrative supervision of tribunal members. It was argued that these provisions had the effect of re-enacting arrangements that earlier judgments had found inconsistent with judicial independence. The petitioner further pointed to the executive’s past conduct in issuing appointment orders based on amended provisions despite assurances recorded before the Court. Concerns were raised that the statutory scheme did not provide adequate safeguards for institutional autonomy, especially in the context of the executive being a frequent litigant before the tribunals.

The Union Government, in response, argued that Parliament retained the authority to legislate on qualifications, age limits, and service conditions relating to tribunal members. It submitted that judicial directions issued in previous cases could not restrict the legislature’s power to enact a new statutory framework. The Union contended that the impugned provisions constituted policy choices, that delegation of rule-making was permissible, and that the legislation aimed to bring uniformity across tribunals. It maintained that the service conditions and appointment procedures reflected legislative judgment rather than an attempt to dilute judicial independence.

The Court stated that the adjudication required consideration of constitutional doctrines underpinning tribunal design. It observed that the case raised questions concerning “the scope and limits of judicial review, the contours of the doctrine of separation of powers, the manner in which legislative power is exercised by Parliament, and the corresponding bounds of executive authority under the Constitution.”

It recorded that all State organs must adhere to constitutional supremacy, noting that “all institutions derive their legitimacy from, and remain accountable to, the Constitution.” The Court stated that independence and structural safeguards are essential when Parliament enacts legislation affecting bodies performing judicial functions. It recorded that legislative design must be consistent with “the constitutional requirements of independence, impartiality, and effective adjudication.”

The Court also relied on prior jurisprudence to reiterate that tribunal independence forms part of constitutional structure, stating that “the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence are… structural pillars of our constitutional order.”

It further observed that these principles are grounded in the constitutional text, recording that “judicial independence is inseparable from the guarantee of judicial review.” On the standards applicable to tribunals, the Court stated that “because tribunals perform functions that were traditionally within the domain of courts, the standards applicable to judicial institutions necessarily inform the conditions of their appointments, qualifications, tenure, and service conditions.”

The Court reiterated that its precedents constitute binding constitutional norms governing these institutions. It stated that “these benchmarks constitute the operative test for evaluating the constitutional validity of laws pertaining to tribunals.” The Court then addressed the recurring issue of legislative attempts to revive invalidated provisions. It observed that Section 184(11) was “clearly an attempt to override the declaration of law by this Court under Article 141.”

The Court reviewed the executive’s practice of delayed appointments, recording that “Tribunals have become ineffective vehicles of administration of justice, resulting in complete denial of access to justice to the litigant public.” It noted with concern that “some tribunals are on the verge of closure due to the absence of Members.” The Court also recorded that executive actions had contradicted prior assurances, stating that “the said appointments by the Central Government are totally inconsistent with the statement made by the learned Attorney General on 9th February 2018.”

It recorded that “the executive bears a constitutional obligation to establish a National Tribunals Commission in accordance with the principles and framework articulated therein.” It then stated that “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 Bench directed that the principles and directions previously laid down in Madras Bar Association (IV) and Madras Bar Association (V) shall continue to govern all matters relating to the appointment, qualifications, tenure, service conditions, and allied aspects concerning tribunal members and chairpersons until the constitutional concerns identified in earlier judgments are fully addressed and cured through appropriate legislation.

The Court directed that the Union of India shall constitute a National Tribunals Commission, noting that the executive bears a constitutional obligation to establish the body in accordance with the framework articulated in prior judgments. It held that the creation of such a commission is an essential structural safeguard intended to ensure independence, transparency, and uniformity in the appointment, administration, and functioning of tribunals across the country.

The Bench granted the Union Government a period of four months from the date of the judgment to establish the National Tribunals Commission “The commission so constituted must adhere to the principles articulated by this Court, particularly concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system.”

Also Read: Income Tax | Bombay High Court Rejects Interim Relief Plea By Same-Sex Couple Seeking Inclusion As ‘Spouse’ Under Section 56(2)(x) Tax Exemption

The Court clarified that the service conditions of all Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal appointed by orders dated 11 September 2021 and 1 October 2021 shall be governed by the old Act and the old Rules.

The Court further clarified that all appointments of Members and Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was completed before the commencement of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, but whose formal appointment notifications were issued after the Act came into force, shall be protected. Such appointments, the Bench held, shall continue to be governed by the parent statutes and by the service conditions laid down in Madras Bar Association (IV) and Madras Bar Association (V), and not by the truncated tenure or altered conditions introduced by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

The Bench concluded by disposing of the writ petitions in these terms.

Case Title: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1330
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 1018 of 2021; Writ Petition (C) No. 626 of 2021
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran