SC Reasserts Judicial Independence – Strikes Down Age & Practice Bar Affecting Advocates & Chartered Accountants
Supreme Court delivered an extensive constitutional ruling examining the validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021, reaffirming that tribunals replacing High Courts must be institutionally independent, free from executive control & structured with safeguards ensuring judicial primacy in appointments, tenure, qualifications & service conditions. Tracing jurisprudence from Sampath Kumar, L. Chandra Kumar, MBA (I) to MBA (IV), Rojer Mathew & later decisions, the Court reiterated that Parliament may legislate on tribunals but cannot enact provisions diluting judicial independence or overriding binding constitutional requirements.
A major part of the judgment deals with eligibility criteria for advocates & Chartered Accountants, particularly the restrictions introduced through the 2020 Rules & subsequent amendments to the Finance Act, 2017. The Court noted that for the first time a minimum 25 years of practice for advocates & Chartered Accountants was prescribed as an eligibility condition for tribunal appointments. This requirement was earlier held unsustainable in MBA (IV) & directed to be amended. Responding to that judgment, the Ordinance introduced a direct minimum age requirement of 50 years. The Court struck down this provision as arbitrary, holding that neither the parent statutes (ITAT, CESTAT, TDSAT, CAT) nor earlier legislative frameworks ever contemplated such a bar. It observed that ITAT has existed for 79 years & has produced over 33 High Court judges, including one Supreme Court judge, with no minimum age requirement. It further held that a 50-year age prescription excludes highly competent, specialised, younger advocates & Chartered Accountants who may possess deeper subject expertise in taxation, anti-dumping law, indirect tax, international tax or telecom regulation. Such exclusion, the Court held, violates Article 14 & undermines efficiency of adjudication in specialised tribunals.
The Court also invalidated provisions enabling executive dominance in Search-cum-Selection Committees, allowing a short four-year tenure, permitting reappointment & giving parent ministries excessive control over tribunal administration. Reiterating that tribunals routinely adjudicate disputes where the Union is a party, the Court held that executive control over appointment, tenure, salary & reappointment impermissibly compromises neutrality. The constitutional promise of “equal protection of laws” demands that the quality, independence & adjudicatory competence of tribunals be equivalent to High Courts.
While upholding Parliament’s competence to legislate on tribunals, the Court severed provisions inconsistent with constitutional guarantees, restored earlier judicial directions on tenure, composition of Selection Committees, age & eligibility criteria & directed appropriate amendments. The petitions were partly allowed, ensuring that judges, advocates & Chartered Accountants eligible for tribunal membership are not arbitrarily excluded by flawed legislative design.
Author Bio
