The Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act and directed the government to set up a National Tribunal Commission.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated several sections of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, observing that the legislation was essentially a marginally altered version of an ordinance that had previously been struck down by the Court. The Bench emphasised that the law enacted by Parliament appeared to mirror, with only minimal cosmetic changes, the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which the Court had earlier found to be constitutionally unsound. The judges noted that the problematic elements of the ordinance—particularly those allowing extensive executive influence over appointments, tenures, and administrative control of various tribunals—had simply been carried forward into the 2021 Act without addressing the Court’s earlier concerns. In its earlier ruling, the Supreme Court had declared that the 2021 ordinance amounted to an impermissible intrusion by the executive into the judicial domain. It had said that the structure created by the ordinance gave the Central government disproportionate authority over tribunal appointments and functioning, compromising the independence that quasi-judicial bodies must maintain. Tribunals, the Court stressed, play a crucial constitutional role in ensuring specialised and efficient adjudication, and any attempt by the executive to dominate their appointments or undermine their autonomy would violate the principle of separation of powers. Despite these findings, Parliament proceeded to enact the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, only days after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. The Act reproduced many of the same provisions that had been held unconstitutional in the ordinance, including restrictions on the tenure of tribunal members, age limits that the Court had explicitly rejected, and procedures that gave the government substantial control over appointments and administration. The Court noted that the legislative reenactment of disapproved provisions—without any meaningful attempt to correct the flaws identified—demonstrated a disregard for judicial authority and constitutional boundaries. In striking down the reenacted provisions, the Supreme Court reiterated that the independence of tribunals forms an essential part of the broader judicial framework. It underscored that tribunals cannot be reduced to extensions of the executive branch, nor can their members be subjected to terms of service that compromise decisional independence. The Court emphasized that earlier judgments, including those in *Madras Bar Association* cases, had clearly laid down guidelines to safeguard tribunal autonomy. These guidelines were not simply advisory but binding principles that Parliament was expected to respect when framing legislation. The Court further expressed concern that the rapid enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act appeared to be an attempt to circumvent its earlier ruling rather than comply with it. It noted that constitutional principles require harmonious functioning between the executive, legislature, and judiciary, but such harmony cannot be achieved when laws are passed in defiance of judicial pronouncements. By striking down the contested provisions once again, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its stance that any law governing tribunals must uphold judicial independence and adhere to constitutional safeguards, rather than replicate provisions already deemed invalid.