The Supreme Court observed in the case stated that on July 26 the matter will be heard finally on that day the court further stated that it will hear the question of the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021.
It is challenged before the Supreme Court in petition filed by Madras Bar Association and the former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh. For challenging the validity of the said provision and constitutional validity of Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
The Section 5 of the impugned Act which states the tenure of the Chairperson and Member to a “manifestly short tenure” of four years and adversely impacts judicial independence is also being challenged before the court.
in the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance which had fixed the term of members as 4 years and which had held fixed the minimum age of appointment of members as 50 years. the Supreme Court had struck down the provisions in last year in the month of July.
The petition further stated that as held in Rojer Mathew, Section 5 also runs against the directions of this Hon’ble Court to fix the tenure of appointees for at least five years.
the terms of the applicants concerned were coming to an end, the Court decided to hear the challenge to the main Act in July, 2022. Furthermore, he Court clarified that by any reason the challenge to the main act cannot be taken up and that the IAs will be dealt with on their own merits.
Reliance was placed on Section 5 of the Tribunal Reforms Act which lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court, the Member of a Tribunal shall hold office for a term of four years or till he attains the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier. It was submitted before the court that the tenure is a matter of policy and which is beyond the purview of the court was submitted by K.K Venugopal, the Attorney General of India.
The court had a question and further the court wondered that the Tribunals Reforms Rationalization & Conditions of Service Ordinance, 2021 how can they be reviewed When the Ordinance with the exact provisions were struck down.
the Court had set aside certain provisions in the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance which fixed the term of members of various tribunals as four years where in that the CETSTAT appointment the applicants argued that it was made in violation of the judgment in the Madras Bar Association case (2021).
The Bench comprising of Justice D.Y Chandrachud, and justice Surya Kant and the justice Bela M Trivedi observed in the application was filed in a writ petition filed by the Madras Bar Association challenging the Tribunal Reforms Act and the bench was adjudicating upon an application filed in the Madras Bar assailing the tenure of appointment of six persons to the post of member judicial in Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).