The approval of a bill on tribunals with elements that had been knocked down before, without any debate in Parliament, was labelled a “major concern” by the Supreme Court on Monday. The court gave the Centre 10 days to fill vacancies on quasi-judicial panels when presiding officers, judicial and technical members are in short supply.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice N V Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose slammed the approval of the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021, without debate, citing insufficient reasons for the need to overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions.
The statute governs the terms and conditions of service and tenure of members of various tribunals, and it reinstates some of the rules that were recently struck down by a bench led by Justice L N Rao in response to several petitions, including one brought by the Madras Bar Association.
“We saw two days ago how something that was struck down by this court has reappeared. There hasn’t been any debate in Parliament, as far as I can tell. There has been no explanation given. We have no objections to the Parliament passing laws. Parliament has the authority to enact whatever law it sees fit. But, at the very least, we need to know why the Government is reintroducing this Bill after the Ordinance was struck down. There isn’t anything. The court has not knocked down the Ordinance on legality, I read the newspapers, and from the Finance Ministers, there is only one word, the CJI observed while reserving the matter for August 31.
The observations are significant in light of the fact that the CJI, speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s 75th Independence Day function, raised the same issue, stating that the country’s law-making process is in a “sorry state of affairs,” with a lack of debates in Parliament leading to a lack of clarity and a “lot of gaps and ambiguity” in the legislation.
The CJI began by reading a few paragraphs from a judgement given by a bench led by Justice L N Rao, which contained scathing criticisms about the government’s approach to tribunals.
“…We’ve detected a troubling tendency of the government failing to carry out the Court’s orders. To ensure that the Tribunals do not become another department under the executive’s control, repeated directives have been issued, but they have gone unheeded, leading the Petitioner to return to this Court. “It is past time for us to put an end to this practise…,” the CJI stated, paraphrasing the decision. The bench then voiced dissatisfaction with the lack of debate in Parliament over the reversal of the judgement, as well as the absence of reasons for doing so.
The Minister’s statement in Parliament was subsequently read out by Justice Ramana, who stated that “the Judiciary has not struck it (the Ordinance) down on constitutionality.” It’s simply sparked a few questions about a few things. The legislature’s ability to make laws is just as crucial as the judiciary’s independence. We’ve come to create laws…’ “This was the debate in Parliament, and these were the arguments given. This is a major problem.”
“What should we take away from this Bill and Act? Do tribunals need to be kept open or shut down? These are the only two issues that must be resolved in the end “The court ordered the government to present it the note produced by the ministry for proposing the Bill.
“When something falls from Your Lordships, my answer can never be negative,” remarked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. However, now that the Bill has become an Act, I may not be able to answer right away because the Parliament has decided to enact it in its wisdom.”
On the subject of filling vacancies in tribunals, the bench took notice of Mehta’s guarantee and stated in its judgement that appointments are in the works.
“We’re giving the government another ten days. We want to make it clear that the pending resolution of these issues should not prevent members of Tribunals from being appointed. The bench addressed the problem of vacancies in tribunals and the lack of action taken to fill them, adding, “We have no indication that any appointments have been made since the last hearing.” Mehta stated that he had received orders to inform the public that some appointments had been made in the Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT) and that he needed time to make the appointments.
The bench ordered the Centre to make as many appointments as possible in the next ten days, citing various tribunals that are on the edge of becoming defunct. The CJI, who announced openings in several tribunals on August 6, stated that appointments are always in the works.
“I’ll explain what the term ‘appointment procedure’ means. Every time we’ve asked in the last year and four months, we’ve been told that it’s in the works, that it’s in the works, that it’s in the works, that it’s in the works, that it’s in the works, that it’s It’s completely meaningless. We’ll give you 10 days and then we’ll hear back, and let’s hope you’ll be able to clear as many appointments as possible by then,” he said. The bench had listed 15 quasi-judicial bodies with vacancies, including Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), DRAT, Securities Appellate Tribunal, TDSAT, NCLT, and NCLAT.
There are 19 empty presiding officers or chairmanships in these tribunals, as well as 110 and 111 judicial and technical memberships, respectively, according to the bench. Attorney General K K Venugopal has been dealing with the difficulties, according to Mehta, and he may be better positioned to respond.
