Supreme Court directs the Centre to create a National Tribunal Commission

The Supreme Court has invalidated key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, ruling that the law attempted to reintroduce measures earlier struck down by the judiciary. The verdict reinforces constitutional safeguards ensuring independence, autonomy and impartial functioning of India’s tribunal system.

Court Rejects Executive Control Over Tribunals

The Bench, led by the Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, held that the Act granted excessive control to the executive in appointments, tenure and service conditions of tribunal members. The court noted that such provisions undermined judicial independence and violated constitutional doctrines relating to separation of powers and fair adjudication.

National Tribunal Commission Mandated

The Union Government has been directed to establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months. The court described this body as essential for bringing transparency, uniformity and independence to administrative and appointment procedures across all tribunals. The Commission is expected to serve as a long-term structural safeguard.

Parliament Cannot Override Judicial Decisions

The judgment described the 2021 Act as a “repackaged version” of an ordinance earlier struck down in 2021. The court observed that Parliament had simply reintroduced provisions already held unconstitutional, rather than addressing the identified defects. It reiterated that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and legislative bodies cannot override binding Supreme Court directions.

Exam Oriented Facts

• The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
• The Union Government must establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months.
• The court ruled that the 2021 Act replicated an invalidated 2021 ordinance.
• Key issues included executive control over appointments, tenure and service conditions of tribunal members.

Concerns Over Tribunal Independence

The petitions, including those filed by the Madras Bar Association and political representatives, argued that the law posed a threat to judicial autonomy. The court agreed, noting that norms relating to age limits, qualifications and tenure had been long settled by previous Constitution Bench rulings. It emphasised that respect for established judicial principles is fundamental to governance and the effective functioning of India’s adjudicatory institutions.