Table of contents | |
Introduction | |
Overturning Judicial Pronouncement | |
Changes in the Act | |
Tenure of Members | |
Impact on Executive and Judiciary | |
Intent and Object behind the Legislation | |
Conclusion |
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, a significant legislative development, replaces a previously promulgated Ordinance with the aim of dissolving eight tribunals. These tribunals previously functioned as appellate bodies to hear disputes under various statutes, but now their functions have been transferred to existing judicial forums such as civil courts or High Courts.
The Act was introduced in the lower house of Parliament shortly after the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the predecessor ordinance, the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, in the Madras Bar Association case (2021). This Act is an attempt by the legislature to reverse the judicial pronouncement by re-enacting the provisions that were invalidated by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 introduces several key changes. It seeks to dissolve certain existing appellate bodies and transfer their functions to other established judicial bodies. The Act empowers the Central Government to establish rules pertaining to qualifications, appointments, terms of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal, and other conditions of service for Members of Tribunals. Additionally, it mandates the appointment of Chairpersons and Members of Tribunals by the Central Government based on the recommendation of a Search-cum-Selection Committee. The composition of this committee is outlined in the Act, with the Chief Justice of India or a nominated Supreme Court Judge heading it. For state tribunals, a separate search committee will be formed. The Act also places a three-month timeframe for the Union government to preferably decide on the committee's recommendations.
According to the Act, the Chairperson of a Tribunal will hold office for a term of four years or until they reach the age of 70, whichever comes earlier. Other Members of a Tribunal will serve for a term of four years or until they reach the age of 67, whichever comes earlier.
One of the significant implications of this Act is its nullification of the ruling in the Madras Bar Association case. Consequently, it limits the judiciary's power to check the legislature and weakens the doctrine of separation of powers. While the Act promotes greater accountability in tribunal operations, it also raises concerns about the independence of these judicial bodies, as it grants the government increased involvement in the process. Notably, the Chief Justice of the High Court, who heads the committee, does not possess a casting vote. The Union government now exercises greater control over the appointment process and holds the power to remove tribunal members.
The legislation aims to address the problem of staff insufficiency and inadequate infrastructure in tribunals, ultimately expediting the resolution of disputes. However, it also raises concerns about removing the jurisdiction of various subject matters from the independent judiciary and placing them under quasi-judicial bodies under strong executive control. Moreover, it renders the orders of such tribunals unchallengeable before Constitutional courts, effectively making them the first and last courts for the respective matters.
Several experts propose the formation of a National Tribunals Commission through a constitutional amendment or statutory backing to guarantee its functional, operational, and financial independence. Given the unique place tribunals hold in the Indian judicial landscape and their involvement in adjudicating crucial matters, it becomes imperative to preserve and crystallize their independence in practice. The evolution of tribunals must strike a balance between ensuring efficiency and maintaining the principles of justice, accountability, and separation of powers.
39 videos|4130 docs|867 tests
|
39 videos|4130 docs|867 tests
|
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|