Striking Down the Override: Supreme Court Quashes Key Provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, Orders a National Tribunals Commission

The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 arrived weeks after the Supreme Court, in Madras Bar Association (V), struck down materially identical provisions of the 2021 Ordinance — including the four-year tenure for tribunal members and the minimum appointment age of fifty. The Act re-enacted the scheme, and the Bar Association returned to court the same year with W.P.(C) No. 1018 of 2021.

On 19 November 2025, the Court delivered its verdict: the provisions could not stand.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can Parliament re-enact, in a statute, provisions that the Supreme Court has struck down — without curing the defects the Court identified?

A Legislature May Cure, Not Defy

The Court held that Sections 3 to 7 of the 2021 Act were unconstitutional because they reproduced, almost word for word, the conditions invalidated in Madras Bar Association (V). Validation of a struck-down law is permissible only where the legislature removes the basis of the judicial decision; here, the Act was a conscious legislative override that defied binding precedent under Article 141 rather than curing anything. The Union's request to refer the issue to a larger bench was declined for want of cogent or compelling reasons.

Structural Fixes: The NTC and the Writ Jurisdiction

The judgment went beyond striking down. The Court directed the Union to establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months, built on the principles its tribunal jurisprudence has insisted upon: independence from executive control, professional expertise, and transparent processes for appointments and administration. It further declared Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution unconstitutional insofar as they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court — carrying forward the logic of L. Chandra Kumar. Until the new framework operates, the directions of Madras Bar Association (IV) and (V) continue to govern — including the five-year tenure and the eligibility of advocates with ten years' practice — and ITAT members appointed under the order of 11 September 2021 remain governed by the old Act and Rules.

What the Court Actually Held

• Sections 3 to 7 of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 were struck down as an impermissible legislative override of binding precedent.
• Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) were declared unconstitutional to the extent they exclude High Court and Supreme Court jurisdiction.
• The Union must establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months, respecting independence, expertise and transparency.
• The directions in MBA (IV) and (V) — five-year tenure, ten-year advocate eligibility — continue to govern in the interim; specified ITAT appointees stay under the old Act and Rules.
• The request to refer the matter to a larger bench was rejected.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It is the Court's strongest modern statement that Parliament cannot neutralise a judgment by re-enacting what was struck down.
• The National Tribunals Commission — recommended for years — finally gets a judicially enforced deadline.
• It re-anchors judicial review of tribunal decisions in the High Courts and Supreme Court as part of the basic structure.
• Every tribunal appointment and service condition in the country now traces to the MBA line of authority, not the 2021 Act.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Tribunal Practitioners and Aspirant Members

• Appointments, tenure and eligibility are governed by the MBA (IV)/(V) directions until the NTC framework operates — test any deviating notification against them.

For Government Counsel

• A validating law must remove the defect the Court identified; re-enactment invites the same fate, now with this precedent squarely in the way.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Because they re-enacted, almost verbatim, the four-year tenure, minimum-age and allied conditions the Court had struck down from the 2021 Ordinance — defying the judgment instead of curing its objections.

An independent oversight body for tribunal appointments and administration that the Court has long recommended; the Union was directed to establish it within four months on principles of independence, expertise and transparency.

The directions in Madras Bar Association (IV) and (V) — including five-year tenure and eligibility of advocates with ten years' practice; ITAT members appointed under the 11 September 2021 order remain under the old Act and Rules.

Conclusion