A Parliament vs Supreme Court fight has been set up

The passage of the Tribunal Reforms Bill by Parliament in its Monsoon Session has given rise to uncomfortable questions about parliamentary propriety and even the relations between Parliament and the Supreme Court. The Bill revived an ordinance that had been struck down by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has made critical remarks about it and the Chief Justice of India, Justice NV Ramana, has himself raised some questions. The bill passed by Parliament abolished nine appellate tribunals and revived provisions of an ordinance regarding conditions of service and tenure of tribunal members and chairpersons. In July, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had struck down similar provisions of the ordinance as unconstitutional as they interfered with the independence of the judiciary. “Impartiality, independence, fairness and reasonableness in decision-making are the hallmarks of the judiciary,” the bench had said.

There are substantial issues about the merit of the provisions in the ordinance and the bill, which is now an Act. These relate to the independence of the tribunals, which are also judicial forums. But the question whether it is right for Parliament to re-enact provisions that have been held as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court is moot. Does that not amount to ignoring the court’s judgement, disturbing the balance of power between various organs of the State and upsetting the checks and balances in the system? The situation has been made more complicated by the fact that there was no debate on the bill in Parliament. The court pointed out this also. “We have not seen any discussion in Parliament. Of course, Parliament has the prerogative to make laws. At least, we must know why the government has introduced the bill despite being struck down by this court...Please show us the debate, the reasons and all that,” the court asked. These are strong words.

The Supreme Court’s verdict had also presciently discussed the possibility of a legislation overriding the court’s directions. It had even said that “setting at naught a decision of the court without removing the defect pointed out in the judgement would sound the death knell of the rule of law. The rule of law would cease to have any meaning, because then it would be open to the government to defy a law and yet to get away with it,” the court had said. The court will have to address the matter now, as a petition has been filed with it to declare the bill unconstitutional. As the petition pointed out, the constitutional limits of Parliament’s legislative power and the power of judicial review by the court are involved in the matter.