Supreme Court irked over Centre’s request to defer hearing on pleas against tribunal reforms law

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the Centre’s request to adjourn the hearing on a batch of pleas, including the one filed by the Madras Bar Association, challenging the constitutional validity of the 2021 law on tribunal reforms.

On November 3, a bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai took strong note of the Centre’s application seeking a direction to refer to a five-judge bench the pleas challenging the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021, saying that it did not expect this from the government at the fag end of the final hearing.

The 2021 Act abolishes certain appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, and amends various terms related to the appointment and tenure of judicial and other members of various tribunals.

The CJI-led bench had then threatened dismissal of the Centre’s plea, moved through Attorney General R Venkatararamani to get the matters referred to a larger bench, saying it did not approve such tactics from the union government.

This led the attorney general to argue the case on merits on Monday and after that the bench fixed the hearing on Friday.

On Thursday, Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati mentioned the matter and sought an adjournment on behalf of the attorney general, citing the latter’s international arbitration commitments.

"Very unfair to the court," the CJI said.

The ASG submitted that the attorney general has an international arbitration scheduled on Friday and hence sought an accommodation.

"We have accommodated him for so much time. We have accommodated him twice. This is not fair to the court," the CJI again said.

"If you want to keep it after 24 (November), you tell us frankly," the CJI, who is retiring on November 23, told Bhati.

When ASG Bhati suggested the matter be taken up on Monday, the visibly irked Chief Justice remarked, “When do we write the judgment then? Every day we are told he’s busy with arbitration. At the last moment, you come with an application to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench!” The CJI also questioned why another law officer could not represent the Union in the matter.

“You have a battery of competent ASGs. When we were in the high court, we gave up other briefs for part-heard matters,” he said, adding that the bench had kept its Friday schedule clear to conclude hearings and use the weekend to prepare the judgment.

Ultimately, the bench agreed to hear senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioner Madras Bar Association, on Friday and accommodate the attorney general’s submissions on Monday.

“If he does not come, we will close the matter,” the CJI said.

Earlier, the bench, which also comprised Justice K Viond Chandran, has already heard final arguments on behalf of petitioners, including lead petitioner the Madras Bar Association, in the matter.

It was irked over the fact that the Centre now wanted the matter to be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench.

“On the last date (of hearing), you (attorney general) did not raise these objections and you sought adjournment on personal grounds. You cannot raise these objections after hearing them fully on merits… we do not expect the Union to indulge in such tactics," the court said.

The CJI observed that it seems the Centre wanted to avoid the present bench.

The top court, on October 16, commenced the final hearing on the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Act.

Datar said in July 2021, the top court quashed several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and found that they infringed upon the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers.

The Centre came up with the Tribunal Reforms Act after the apex court verdict quashed several provisions of the ordinance, he said.

Strangely, the Act "verbatim" contained the provisions of the ordinance which were struck down by the top court which is impermissible unless the basis of the judgement is removed by the government, he said.

The top court had struck down the provision of the ordinance that reduced the tenure of tribunal members and chairpersons to four years, noting that a short term of office could encourage executive influence over the judiciary.

It had held that the tenure must be five years to ensure security of service, with a maximum age of 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members.

The bench had also struck down the minimum age of 50 for appointments to tribunals.

It stressed the need to induct younger members to ensure the judiciary remains robust and vibrant, stating that a minimum of 10 years of practice should be a sufficient qualification for judicial members, similar to what is required for High Court judges.

The verdict had also rejected the government's power to make appointments from a panel of two names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

The ordinance was promulgated in April 2021.

After the apex court verdict, the government in August introduced and passed the Tribunals Reforms Act with provisions almost identical to those that were struck down.