The Tribunals Reforms Bill, which will abolish nine appellate tribunals in 2021, has been passed by Parliament. As part of its effort to rationalise the tribunals, the Act attempts to provide consistent terms and conditions for diverse members of the Tribunal and to abolish particular tribunals. The newest issue between the legislature and the judiciary is the Supreme Court’s comments on tribunal law.
WHAT ARE TRIBUNALS?
A quasi-judicial organisation performs a variety of tasks, including adjudicating disputes, evaluating the rights of disputing parties, making administrative decisions, and reviewing previous administrative decisions.
NEED FOR TRIBUNALS
Cases are still pending in several courts. Reduce the court’s workload. Make judgments as soon as possible. Charge the courts, which are already overwhelmed. Hear cases involving the environment, the military, and tax and administrative difficulties.
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which was not part of the original constitution, was used to include it into the Indian Constitution. Article 323-A relates to Administrative Tribunals, while Article 323-B relates to other types of tribunals.
THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THE AMENDMENT
Abolition of Appellate Tribunals: Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, Airports Appellate Tribunal, Authority for Advanced Rulings, Intellectual Property Appellate Board and the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal are the five tribunals which are sought to be abolished by the Bill and their functions are to be transferred to the existing judicial bodies.
IMPORTANT POINTS TO REMEMBER
The Chairperson and Members of the various tribunals are to be appointed on the recommendations of the Search-cum Selection Committee, according to Section 3 (7) of the Bill.
The chairperson of the committee is the Chief Justice of India, or a Supreme Court Judge selected by him (with casting vote).The sitting or outgoing Chairperson, or a retired Supreme Court Judge, or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, and the Secretary of the Ministry under which the Tribunal is created are all appointed by the Union government (with no voting right).
The Union government must make a decision on the search-cum selection committee’s recommendations within three months of the date of the suggestion. According to Section 5 of the Bill, a tribunal’s Chairperson shall serve for a term of four years or until he or she reaches the age of seventy years, whichever comes first. The tenure for members of the tribunal is four years or until they reach the age of sixty-seven years, whichever comes first.
ISSUES OF THE BILL
In the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India knocked down the regulations mandating a minimum age of 50 years for nomination as chairperson or members, as well as a four-year term limit. It ruled that such requirements are in violation of the separation of powers, judiciary independence, rule of law, and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Section 3(7) sought to overturn an Apex Court decision that held the rules pertaining to the Search-cum-Selection Committee’s proposal of two names for each seat and requiring the government to make a choice within three months.
WHY IS IT A FLASHPOINT BETWEEN LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIARY?
“Impartiality, independence, fairness and reasonableness in decision-making are the hallmarks of the judiciary” the bench comprising justices Nageswara Rao, Ravindra Bhat and Hemant Gupta had said.
Advocates must be at least 50 years old to be appointed as members of tribunals, and the change mandates a four-year term. The administration has maintained that the move will bring in a specialized talent pool of advocates to choose from, despite the fact that the court ruled the restrictions arbitrary.
In the Roger Mathew v Union of India case, A five-judge Constitution Bench led by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi threw down an amendment to the 2017 Finance Act, which was introduced as a money Bill and changed the structure and operation of numerous courts.
The bench, which also included Justices Ramana and D Y Chandrachud, ordered the government to draught new rules for tribunal member appointment. The Madras Bar Association had already challenged numerous rules relating to the establishment of the National Company Law Tribunal in two prior cases, in 2010 and 2015. The Supreme Court has construed laws relating to the appointment of members in two cases to correspond with the judiciary’s independence.