Madras Bar Association Vs Union of India And Another (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 relating to the appointment and tenure of tribunal members, holding that the Act violated earlier judicial pronouncements governing tribunal independence. The Bench of the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran observed that the Union government had reintroduced provisions previously invalidated by the Court, making only minor changes. The Court held that these provisions were inconsistent with constitutional principles, including separation of powers and judicial independence, which are embedded in the Constitution’s text, structure, and spirit.
The Court ruled that the 2021 Act effectively attempted a legislative override by reproducing, in a slightly modified form, provisions that had already been struck down. Such an approach, it stated, was impermissible under the constitutional scheme because it failed to cure the defects identified in earlier judgments. Instead, the Act re-enacted the same provisions under a different label, thereby violating the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. As a result, the provisions of the Act were declared unsustainable.
The Court directed that the service conditions of Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) appointed by the order dated September 11, 2021 would continue to be governed by the old Act and Rules. It further clarified that all appointments of Members and Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection Committee had been completed before commencement of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, but whose formal appointment notifications were issued after the Act came into force, would be protected. These appointments would continue to be governed by parent statutes and by service conditions laid down in earlier decisions referred to as MBA (IV) and MBA (V), instead of the truncated tenure and altered conditions introduced by the 2021 Act.
In the conclusion, the judgment invoked Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s warning that constitutional structures could be undermined without altering their textual form merely by changing administrative arrangements, thereby making them inconsistent with the Constitution’s spirit. The Court observed that this concern was reflected in the recurring litigation on the tribunal system. It noted that despite clear judicial directions over more than three decades, the Union of India had repeatedly re-enacted provisions already struck down. The Court expressed disapproval of this legislative approach, stressing that the issues raised in the petitions were neither new nor unresolved.
The Court highlighted that the judiciary, already facing a heavy backlog across all levels, was compelled to revisit issues that had been conclusively settled earlier. Such repetition consumes judicial time that could be spent on pressing constitutional matters. It emphasised that reducing pendency is a shared institutional responsibility that requires respect for settled law. The legislature and executive, it stated, must exercise functions with regard to constitutional principles and judicial precedent to avoid unnecessary litigation and maintain good governance.
The Court directed that unless constitutional concerns identified in multiple tribunal-related judgments are fully addressed and cured, and unless Parliament enacts appropriate legislation that adheres to those principles, the standards laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V) shall continue to govern appointments, qualifications, tenure, service conditions, and related aspects for tribunal members and chairpersons. These judgments were described as binding constitutional standards essential for maintaining independence and impartiality of tribunals.
The Court reiterated earlier directions requiring the executive to establish a National Tribunals Commission, conceived as a structural safeguard to ensure independence, transparency, and uniformity in the appointment and administration of tribunals. It noted that piecemeal reforms had failed to rectify systemic deficiencies. The Court granted the Union of India four months from the date of the judgment to establish the National Tribunals Commission in accordance with the principles previously articulated, particularly concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, and transparent processes.
The Court reaffirmed its earlier clarification that service conditions for ITAT Members appointed on September 11, 2021 would continue under the old Act and Rules, and that appointments recommended before the 2021 Act came into force but formally notified afterward would remain protected under parent statutes and previous judicial directions.
Finally, the writ petitions and all pending applications were disposed of in these terms.
Read Further Addendum in this case by SC: 25-Year Experience Requirement for ITAT CA Appointments Struck Down
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
