Tribunal Reforms Act of 2021:

Source: The Hindu

Context:

The Supreme Court has noticed that the government's decision to propose a legislation on crucial tribunals last year, and that it did so only a few days after the court threw down a similar law, may amount to a breach of the court's ruling on the matter.

What exactly is the problem?

This year, the Tribunal Reforms Act of 2021 was challenged in court.

They contend that the law poses a major danger to judicial independence because it grants the federal government broad authority over the selection of members of key tribunals as well as their service conditions, pay, and other benefits.

The petitioners have stated that the Act was presented in the Lok Sabha only a few days after the Supreme Court knocked down the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance of 2021, which had been passed by the previous parliament. The Act reinstated the exact identical sections of the ordinance that had been ruled down by the Supreme Court in the first place.

Provisions that have caused controversy:

The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, was enacted unanimously by both chambers of Congress earlier this year. The bill has re-ignited a debate between the legislature and the court regarding the powers and limitations of the legislative branch in enacting legislation.

For the nomination of advocates as members of tribunals, the Act stipulates that they must be at least 50 years old and that they must serve for a period of four years.

The court ruled that the caps were arbitrary. However, the government claims that the measure will result in the creation of a specialised skill pool of advocates from whom to choose.

Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution are rendered null and void by Section 3(1), Section 3(7), Section 5 and Section 7(1).

Persons under the age of fifty-one are barred from being appointed to tribunals under Section 3(1). In addition to undermining tenure length and security, this is a violation of both judicial independence and the constitutional concept of separation of powers.

It is alleged that Section 3(7) of the challenged Act, which requires the submission of a panel of two names to the Central Government by the search-cum selection committee, breaches the constitutional norms of separation of powers and judicial independence.

The following are the highlights of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, which will take effect in 2021:

As part of its effort to rationalise the tribunals, the legislation attempts to provide consistent terms and conditions for the various members of the Tribunal and to eliminate specific tribunals that are already in existence.

The following are the most significant modifications:

It intends to abolish several current appellate bodies and transfer their powers to other judicial organisations already in existence, including the Supreme Court.

In order to provide the Central Government the authority to enact regulations for the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation and removal of Members of Tribunals, as well as other terms and conditions of service, the Bill proposes to amend the Constitution.

It stipulates that the Central Government would nominate the Chairperson and Members of the Tribunals on the proposal of a Search and Selection Commission.

A committee to be chaired by either the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court Judge selected by him is also established by this Act, which also specifies its makeup.

In the case of state tribunals, a second search committee will be established.

The suggestions of the search-cum selection committee must be decided by the Union government within three months of the date of the committee's report, if at all possible.

Duration of office: The Chairperson of a Tribunal shall hold office for a period of four years or until he reaches the age of seventy-five years, whichever comes first. Other members of a Tribunal are appointed for a period of four years or until they reach the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is the sooner of the two.

The abolition of Appellate Tribunals is being considered.

The Act proposes to abolish the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, the Airports Appellate Tribunal, the Authority for Advance Rulings, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, and the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal, with their functions being transferred to the existing judicial bodies.

What was the Court's decision, and what are the most significant issues with the law?

In the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India knocked down the requirements requiring a minimum age of 50 years for appointment as chairman or members, as well as the clauses prescribing a term of four years for members.

Such restrictions, according to the court, are in violation of the constitutional principles of separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, rule of law, and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Issues:

The new bill seeks to overturn the verdict of the Supreme Court in relation to the following sections of the Constitution:

The legal need for a minimum age of 50 years is still in effect today, according to the legislation.

The Chairperson and the members of the tribunal will continue to serve for a period of four years.

The suggestion of two candidates for each position by the Search-and-Selection Committee, with the government being required to make a decision on the recommendations within three months, if possible.