CENTRE DEFENDS TRIBUNAL REFORMS ACT

INTRODUCTION

The bill contains measures that are comparable to the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021, which was struck down by the Supreme Court. Last month, the Supreme Court overturned the requirement that chairpersons and members be at least 50 years old. The ordinance's four-year term requirement was also struck down by the Supreme Court. Both clauses, however, have been included in the Act. In addition, Section 3(7) of the Act attempts to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that upheld rules relating to the Search-cum-Selection Committee's nomination of two candidates for each job and the Central Government's decision within three months. Before talking about the Tribunals Reform, 2021, let us first know what is a tribunal.

WHAT IS TRIBUNAL

A tribunal is a quasi-judicial body established to address issues such as resolving administrative or tax-related disagreements. The name 'Tribunal' comes from 'Tribunes,' which means 'Magistrates of the Classical Roman Republic.' It has a variety of responsibilities, including adjudicating disputes, determining rights between disputing parties, making administr3ative decisions, reviewing administrative decisions, and so forth. Tribunals were not part of the original constitution, it was incorporated in the Indian Constitution by 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.

• The bill proposes to abolish some appellate bodies and reassign their powers to other judicial bodies. The High Court, for example, will consider issues handled by the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal.

• The Finance Act of 2017 combined domain-based tribunals. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, for example, has been amalgamated with the Competition Appellate Tribunal.

• The central government will appoint the Chairperson and Members of the Tribunals based on the recommendations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee. The Chairperson of the Committee will be the Chief Justice of India, or a Supreme Court Judge selected by him (with casting vote).

• The central governments have selected two secretaries. The current or outgoing Chairperson, or a former Supreme Court Judge, or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, and the Secretary of the Ministry that established the Tribunal (with no voting right).

• It would have independent search and selection panels, with the Chairman being the Chief Justice of the High Court of the concerned state (with a casting vote).

• The bill establishes a four-year term of office for the president (subject to the upper age limit of 70 years for the Chairperson, and 67 years for members).

• It also stipulates that a chairperson or member must be at least 50 years old to be appointed.

• It specifies that any Chairperson or Member may be removed from office by the central government on the advice of the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

WHY THE CENTRE IS DEFENDING THE REFORM BILLS

The Centre has defended the constitutionality of the new tribunal reforms law, which governs matters such as the nomination and term of presiding and other members of tribunals, in the Supreme Court, claiming that the judiciary's independence cannot be used to test the statutes. The Centre's response to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, is significant in light of the fact that a bench led by Chief Justice N V Ramana described the passing of the Bill on tribunals with the provisions struck down earlier as a "major issue" that was passed without debate in Parliament. Section 3 (1) of the Tribunal Reforms Act of 2021, according to the petitioners, is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution. Concerns have also been expressed about Section 3(7) of the 2021 Act.

According to the Centre's statement, the basic structure of the Constitution may only be used to establish the legitimacy of a constitutional amendment, but it has no influence on the validity of a statute. The remark came in response to a series of petitions filed by the Madras Bar Association, Jairam Ramesh, and others, all of which questioned the Act's constitutionality. Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution were allegedly violated by Section 3(1) of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, as well as Sections 3(7), 5 and 7(1). The Centre went on to explain that judicial independence isn't a good starting point for putting laws to the test. "If the independence of the judiciary is recognised as a foundation for any reason, a paragraph declaring its abolition could not be inserted, which would appear to be inconsistent on the surface." Furthermore, judicial independence is not a basis for reviewing statutes, according to the response.