Apex Court Annuls Key Sections of Tribunal Reform Act Citing Repetitive Legislation and Violation of Judicial Independence

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant verdict by striking down multiple provisions of the Tribunal Reform Act 2021 declaring them unconstitutional and contrary to established judicial principles. In a stern observation the bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai remarked that the government had merely repackaged previously rejected legal clauses terming the move as serving old wine in a new bottle. The court emphasized that the enactment violated the doctrine of separation of powers and undermined the independence of the judiciary by reintroducing conditions that had been explicitly disapproved in earlier judgments. The bench expressed strong disapproval noting that such legislative actions not only disrespect the court’s rulings but also lead to a waste of valuable judicial time.During the hearing the central government argued that the Tribunal Reform Act 2021 was fully constitutional and drafted with due regard to prior Supreme Court directives.The Union aimed to bring uniformity to the selection processes across various tribunals. However the petitioners including the Madras Bar Association challenged the validity of the act on the grounds that it reduced the tenure of members and infringed upon the autonomy of these quasi judicial bodies. The court rejected the government’s defense pointing out that abolishing established tribunals and transferring their powers to High Courts without adequate infrastructure would only increase the burden on the judicial system.The bench also specified that the retirement age for tribunal members should remain at 62 years while chairpersons would retire at 65 years ensuring stability in tenureThe judgment also witnessed a tense exchange regarding the allocation of the case with the government suggesting the matter be referred to a larger five judge bench.Chief Justice Gavai dismissed this request stating it appeared to be a strategy to avoid the current bench though the Attorney General expressed disagreement with this characterization. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that the act disregarded the binding orders of the judiciary and ordered the restoration of fair service conditions for tribunal members. The verdict serves as a reminder that the legislative branch must adhere to constitutional boundaries and respect the judicial review process when framing laws governing the administration of justice.