The Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a withering blow to the Centre by striking down as “unconstitutional” and “impermissible” the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, on the ground that it impinged on the independence of the judiciary and Parliament had no “absolute” power to enact legislation to overrule a judicial verdict.
In a scathing judgment, a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said the impugned Act “merely reproduces, in a slightly altered form, the very provisions earlier struck down” by the top court.
Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies that enjoy powers on a par with the high courts and have been created to reduce the burden on the higher judiciary in specialised matters.
Both the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, and the earlier Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, which was quashed by the top court in 2021, sought to clip the powers of the judiciary and vested the power in the government to reduce the five-year tenure of chairpersons/ members (equivalent to the chief justice and judges of high courts, respectively) to four years. It also mandated a minimum age of 50 years for the appointment, contrary to the existing rules that permitted any advocate with 10 years’ experience to be appointed to the posts.
The 2021 Act was challenged by the Madras Bar Association, which pointed out that the Centre had enacted a replica of the ordinance that had been struck down.
“Therefore, the provisions of the impugned Act cannot be sustained. They violate the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence, which are firmly embedded in the text, structure and spirit of the Constitution. The impugned Act directly contradicts binding judicial pronouncements that have repeatedly clarified the standards governing the appointment, tenure and functioning of tribunal members,” CJI Gavai, who authored the 137-page judgment, said.
Instead of curing the defects identified by the top court, the Act merely “reproduces, in slightly altered form, the very provisions earlier struck down”, the judgment added.
“This amounts to a legislative override in the strictest sense: an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities. Such an approach is impermissible under our constitutional scheme. Because the impugned Act fails to remove the defects identified in prior judgments and instead reenacts them under a new label, it falls afoul of the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. Accordingly, the impugned provisions are struck down as unconstitutional,” the ruling stated.
The apex court said when Parliament designs or alters the tribunal system, it must do so in a manner consistent with the constitutional requirements of independence, impartiality and effective adjudication.
A law that undermines these foundational values, such as by enabling executive control over appointments, curtailing tenure arbitrarily or weakening institutional autonomy, does not merely offend an “abstract principle” but also strikes at the core of the constitutional arrangement, it said.
“Once the court interprets the content and purpose of a constitutional provision, that interpretation becomes binding and normative upon all branches of government, including the legislature and the executive.
“The Indian constitutional framework does not subscribe to parliamentary sovereignty, nor does it vest unqualified supremacy in the judiciary. The architecture of our Constitution is firmly rooted in the principle of constitutional supremacy.
“Thus, under the model of constitutional supremacy, every organ of the State derives its authority from the Constitution and remains bound by the limitations it prescribes. Parliament, though entrusted with wide legislative powers, must enact laws within the contours of its legislative competence and in conformity with constitutional rights, values and structural principles. The power to assess whether a law comports with these limitations is expressly vested in the courts,” the bench said.
Once the court has struck down a provision or issued binding directions after identifying a constitutional defect, Parliament cannot override or contradict that judicial decision by reenacting the same provisions in a different form, it said.
“What Parliament may legitimately do is to cure the defect identified by the court, whether by altering the underlying conditions, removing the constitutional infirmity, or restructuring the statutory framework in a manner consistent with the court’s reasoning. A valid legislative response must therefore engage with and remedy the constitutional violation pointed out by the judiciary. It cannot merely restate or repackage the invalidated provision,” CJI Gavai said.
“Parliament, like every other institution under our constitutional scheme, must operate within the bounds of the Constitution. Its discretion is broad but not absolute. It must respect the principles of separation of powers, the guarantees of fundamental rights, and the structural values (such as judicial independence) that are part of the basic framework of our constitutional order,” he added.
The apex court said the binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any legislative power by enacting a provision which, in substance, simply overrules a judgment unless the foundation of the judgment is removed.
The bench said the constitutional scheme does not permit the judiciary to prescribe the text of a law or to mandate that Parliament adopt a specific policy choice.
“While the court cannot require Parliament to enact a law in a particular form, it unquestionably retains the authority, and indeed the constitutional obligation, to examine the validity of any law that Parliament enacts. Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution,” the apex court said.
It said if a legislative measure infringes on fundamental rights, violates structural principles such as separation of powers or judicial independence, exceeds legislative competence, or frustrates binding constitutional directions, the court may strike it down.
“The inability to compel Parliament to legislate in a specific manner does not translate into an obligation to blindly accept any law that Parliament enacts,” the apex court said.