Context:

The ongoing confrontation between the Supreme Court of India and the Union Government over the control, administration, and composition of tribunals has again come to the forefront with the Court’s hearing of petitions challenging the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

About Tribunals:

Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies set up to provide a faster, more specialized, and cost-effective alternative to regular courts for resolving specific types of disputes. They were introduced in India through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution.

·         Purpose: To reduce the burden on traditional courts and ensure speedy justice in specialized areas.

·         Nature: They have judicial powers but are not full-fledged courts; members often include both judicial and technical experts.

·         Specialization: Each tribunal deals with a specific area, such as administration, taxation, or the environment.

·         Constitutional Basis:

o    Article 323A – Administrative Tribunals (e.g., for government service matters).

o    Article 323B – Other Tribunals (e.g., for taxation, industrial disputes, land reforms).

Background of the Conflict:

The dispute began in 2017 when the Finance Act empowered the Centre to frame rules for tribunals. However, the Supreme Court struck down these rules in 2019, citing undermined judicial independence. Despite this, the Centre promulgated an ordinance in April 2021, fixing the tenure of tribunal members at four years and setting a minimum appointment age of 50 years.

Key Issues:

• • Tenure of Tribunal Members: The Act fixes the tenure at four years, which the petitioners argue makes members insecure and susceptible to executive pressure. The Supreme Court had previously recommended a five-year tenure to ensure independence.
  • Minimum Age Limit: The Act sets a minimum age limit of 50 years, which the petitioners argue excludes successful younger lawyers from consideration.
  • Separation of Powers: The Centre argues that the Act is a matter of "pure policy" within Parliament's domain, while the petitioners contend that it undermines judicial independence and separation of powers.

Impact of the Standoff:

The standoff has caused significant delays in filling tribunal vacancies, with many tribunals left "virtually defunct." For instance, there are substantial vacancies in key tribunals such as the National Company Law Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunal, and Income Tax Appellate Law Tribunal.

Conclusion:

The discord between the Supreme Court and the Centre over tribunals is not merely a power struggle, it is a test of India’s constitutional commitment to judicial independence and separation of powers. The outcome will determine whether tribunals can truly serve as independent and effective instruments of justice, or remain extensions of executive control in the name of efficiency.