New Delhi, Nov 3 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday took strong note of the Centre’s application seeking a direction to refer to a larger bench the pleas challenging the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021, saying that it did not expect this from the government at the fag end of the final hearing.
The 2021 Act abolishes certain appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, and amends various terms related to the appointment and tenure of judicial and other members of various tribunals.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Viond Chandran, which has already heard final arguments on behalf of petitioners, including lead petitioner Madras Bar Association, in the matter, was irked over the fact that the Centre now wanted the matter to be referred to a five-judge constitution bench.
“On the last date (of hearing), you (attorney general) did not raise these objections and you sought adjournment on personal grounds. You cannot raise these objections after hearing them fully on merits… we do not expect the Union to indulge in such tactics.
“This is after we have heard one party fully and accommodated the Attorney General on personal grounds,” said the visibly irked CJI.
The CJI observed that it seems the Centre wanted to avoid the present bench. CJI Gavai is demitting office on November 23.
Attorney General R Venkataramani urged the bench not to misunderstand the Centre’s application seeking adjudication by a larger bench and said that the preliminary objections on this aspect were already part of the reply filed by the Union government earlier.
“If we reject this application by you, we will observe that the Union is trying to avoid this bench. We will not hear all this now after we have heard one side on merits,” the CJI said.
“No, please do not get this impression. The Act was passed after due deliberations… we are only saying that should the Act be just struck down because of these issues. Let it get some time to be stabilised,” the attorney general said.
Justice Chandran said the issue of referring the matter to a larger bench was not raised earlier and the same cannot be done at such a belated stage.
“At least at some stage you should have raised this issue… that too an application for this? You took an adjournment because you wanted to come and argue,” the bench observed.
When the attorney general tried hard to dispel the notion that the Centre wanted to defer the hearing, the CJI said, “We have the highest regard and respect for you.
“You (AG) please confine yourself to respond to the submissions made by (Arvind) Datar (the senior advocate who argued against the law),” the CJI said.
“Argue on the basis of any documents that may arise. If during the course of arguments, we think that reference to a larger bench is needed we will do it… but we will not do it at the behest of your application which comes at midnight,” the bench said.
The attorney general commenced final arguments in the case.
He said the government, in its wisdom, came out with a law after a long gestation period and the statute be allowed to work to gain experience.
“The court should not set aside the law,” the top law officer said and referred to the provisions of the law with regard to minimum term and prerequisites for appointments in various tribunals”.
“Merit cannot be sacrificed for selections to take place from the waitlist,” he said.
Tribunal establishment has gained some history now and at this time, let the Act gain some more experience and be there for some more time and to say that striking the complete Act now won’t be justified, he said.
The hearing would resume on Friday.
The top court, on October 16, commenced the final hearing on the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Act.
Datar said in July 2021, the top court quashed several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and found that they infringed upon the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers.
The Centre came up with the Tribunal Reforms Act after the apex court verdict quashed several provisions of the ordinance, he said.
Strangely, the Act “verbatim” contained the provisions of the ordinance which were struck down by the top court which is impermissible unless the basis of the judgement is removed by the government, he said.
The top court had struck down the provision of the ordinance that reduced the tenure of tribunal members and chairpersons to four years, noting that a short term of office could encourage executive influence over the judiciary.
It had held that the tenure must be five years to ensure security of service, with a maximum age of 70 for chairpersons and 67 for members.
The bench had also struck down the minimum age of 50 for appointments to tribunals.
It stressed the need to induct younger members to ensure the judiciary remains robust and vibrant, stating that a minimum of 10 years of practice should be a sufficient qualification for judicial members, similar to what is required for High Court judges.
The verdict had also rejected the government’s power to make appointments from a panel of two names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
The ordinance was promulgated in April 2021.
After the apex court verdict, the government in August introduced and passed the Tribunals Reforms Act with provisions almost identical to those that were struck down. PTI SJK RT
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.