Tribunal Reforms Act of 2021:

GS Paper 2:

Topics Covered: Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies.

Context:

The Supreme Court has observed that the government’s move to introduce a statute last year on key tribunals, that too, merely days after the court struck down an identical law, may amount to dishonouring its judgment.

What’s the issue?

The Tribunal Reforms Act of 2021 has been challenged in the court.

• The petitioners argue that the law raises a serious threat to judicial independence by giving the government wide powers regarding appointments, service conditions, salaries etc., of members of key tribunals.
• The petitioners have argued that the Act was introduced in the Lok Sabha just days after the Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance of 2021. The Act brought back the very same provisions in the ordinance which were struck down by the Supreme Court.

Controversial provisions:

The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 was passed in both houses last year. The law has triggered a fresh stand-off between the legislature and the judiciary over the powers of and limitations on law making.

1. As per the Act, the minimum age criterion is 50 years for appointment of advocates as members of tribunals and the tenure is four-years.

The court found the caps arbitrary. But, the government has argued that the move will bring in a specialised talent pool of advocates to pick from.

1. Section 3(1), Sections 3(7), 5 and 7(1) ultra-vires Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution.

Section 3 (1) bars appointments to tribunals of persons below 50 years of age. This undermines the length/security of tenure and violates both judicial independence and the principle of separation of powers.

Section 3(7) of the impugned Act which mandates the recommendation of a panel of two names by the search-cum selection committee to the Central Government, violates the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence.

Highlights of Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021:

• The law seeks to provide for uniform terms and conditions of the various members of the Tribunal and abolish certain tribunals, as a part of its bid to rationalize the tribunals.

Key changes:

• It seeks to dissolve certain existing appellate bodies and transfer their functions to other existing judicial bodies.
• It seeks to empower the Central Government to make rules for qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and other terms and conditions of service of Members of Tribunals.
• It provides that the Chairperson and Members of the Tribunals will be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendation of a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
• It also provides the composition of the Committee, to be headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him.
• For state tribunals, there will be a separate search committee.
• The Union government has to ‘preferably’ decide on the recommendations of the search-cum selection committee within 3 months of the date of the recommendation.
• Tenure: Chairperson of a Tribunal shall hold office for a term of 4 years or till he attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. Other Members of a Tribunal shall hold office for a term of 4 years or till he attains the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier.

Abolition of Appellate Tribunals:

Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, Airports Appellate Tribunal, Authority for Advance Rulings, Intellectual Property Appellate Board and the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal are the five tribunals which are sought to be abolished by the Act and their functions are to be transferred to the existing judicial bodies.

What had the Court ruled and what are the key Issues with the law?

The Supreme Court in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India had struck down the provisions requiring a minimum age for appointment as chairperson or members as 50 years and prescribing the tenure of four years.

• It held that such conditions are violative of the principles of separation of powers, independence of judiciary, rule of law and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

The new law has sought to undo the judgment of the Apex Court wrt to the following provisions:

1. The minimum age requirement of 50 years still finds a place in the law.
2. The tenure for the Chairperson and the members of the tribunal remains four years.
3. The recommendation of two names for each post by the Search-cum-Selection Committee and requiring the decision to be taken by the government preferably within three months.

Insta Curious:

Do you know the differences between Tribunals and Courts? Reference: read this.

InstaLinks:

Prelims Link:

1. What are tribunals?
2. Constitutional provisions in this regard.
3. Composition and functions.
4. Overview of the latest ordinance.

Mains Link:

Are tribunals a panacea for judicial efficiency? Does tribunalisation of justice undermine the principles set in our constitution? Examine.

Sources: the Hindu.