Supreme Court Strikes Down Tribunal Rules 2020: Ensuring Judicial Independence

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, has once again addressed the long-standing issue of judicial independence in the functioning of tribunals. The case, filed by the Madras Bar Association against the Union of India, challenged the constitutional validity of the ‘Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities [Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members] Rules, 2020’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘2020 Rules’). The judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench, significantly impacts the structure, appointment, and tenure of tribunal members across India.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose due to the government’s repeated attempts to control the appointment and functioning of tribunals through executive orders, which the judiciary has repeatedly struck down. The 2020 Rules, framed under the Finance Act, 2017, sought to regulate the selection process, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members. However, the Supreme Court found these rules to be unconstitutional and inconsistent with past rulings.

The core issue revolved around whether the 2020 Rules ensured judicial independence, particularly concerning the dominance of the executive in appointments, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members. The petitioners argued that the rules violated the fundamental principles of separation of powers and judicial independence.

Key Issues Raised

The Supreme Court identified several key issues regarding the 2020 Rules:

• The composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee lacked judicial dominance.
• Appointment of individuals without judicial experience as judicial members.
• Tenure of tribunal members was unreasonably short (four years).
• Exclusion of advocates from appointment as judicial members in many tribunals.
• Executive control over tribunals, leading to the erosion of judicial independence.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The Madras Bar Association, represented by senior counsel, argued:

• The Search-cum-Selection Committee should have judicial dominance to ensure impartiality.
• Advocates with sufficient experience should be eligible for appointment as judicial members.
• A minimum tenure of five years should be prescribed to maintain continuity and efficiency.
• The executive should have no control over the appointment or removal of tribunal members.
• The 2020 Rules violated the constitutional principles laid down in previous Supreme Court judgments.

Arguments by the Respondent

The Union of India, represented by the Attorney General, countered:

• The executive’s role in tribunal appointments was necessary for administrative efficiency.
• Tribunal members’ tenure was set at four years, subject to reappointment.
• Eligibility criteria for judicial members were designed to ensure high standards.
• Members of the Indian Legal Service should also be eligible for judicial positions.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the 2020 Rules and past judicial precedents, making the following critical observations:

• Judicial Independence: The Court emphasized that tribunals are an extension of the judiciary and must be independent from executive interference.
• Search-cum-Selection Committee: The Court ruled that the Chief Justice of India or their nominee must have a casting vote, ensuring judicial dominance.
• Tenure of Tribunal Members: The four-year tenure was deemed inadequate, and the Court mandated a five-year term.
• Advocate Eligibility: The Court held that advocates with at least ten years of experience should be eligible for judicial positions in tribunals.
• Indian Legal Service Members: They may be considered for judicial positions, provided they meet the criteria applicable to advocates.
• House Rent Allowance: The Court directed an increase in the housing allowance for tribunal members, ensuring better living conditions.
• National Tribunals Commission: The Court directed the establishment of an independent body to oversee tribunal appointments and administration.

Final Judgment and Directives

The Supreme Court struck down several provisions of the 2020 Rules and issued the following directives:

• A National Tribunals Commission should be established to oversee appointments and ensure independence.
• The Search-cum-Selection Committee must include a Chief Justice of India nominee with a casting vote.
• Tribunal members’ tenure should be a minimum of five years, extendable to seven years.
• Advocates with ten years of experience should be eligible for judicial member positions.
• Tribunal members must receive appropriate salaries and benefits, including enhanced housing allowances.
• Appointments to tribunals must be completed within three months from the selection process.
• The 2020 Rules shall only have prospective effect, applicable from February 12, 2020.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of judicial independence and ensures that tribunals function as effective, impartial adjudicatory bodies. The ruling curtails executive interference and safeguards the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice. By directing the establishment of a National Tribunals Commission, the Court has set the stage for more transparent and accountable tribunal governance. This judgment serves as a strong reminder that the judiciary remains committed to upholding constitutional values and protecting the rights of citizens.

Petitioner Name: Madras Bar Association.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 27-11-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Madras Bar Associati vs Union of India & Anr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-11-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category