The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021.
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 Vinod Chandran reserved the judgment after Attorney General R Venkataramani concluded his submissions, urging the bench that the law has been made by Parliament after a long gestation period and let the statute be allowed to hold the field.
The top court commenced the final hearing in the case on October 16.
On Monday, the bench asked how the Centre can bring the same Tribunals Reforms law, whose several provisions were quashed by it earlier, with some minor changes and that too without taking away the basis of the judgment.
The petitions have challenged the provisions of the Act on grounds that they violate the principles of judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 replaced the earlier Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which had drawn similar constitutional challenges.
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 2021 introduced and passed the Tribunals Reforms Act with provisions almost identical to those that were struck down.
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 Vinod Chandran reserved the judgment after Attorney General R Venkataramani concluded his submissions, urging the bench that the law has been made by Parliament after a long gestation period and let the statute be allowed to hold the field.
The top court commenced the final hearing in the case on October 16.
On Monday, the bench asked how the Centre can bring the same Tribunals Reforms law, whose several provisions were quashed by it earlier, with some minor changes and that too without taking away the basis of the judgment.
The petitions have challenged the provisions of the Act on grounds that they violate the principles of judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 replaced the earlier Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which had drawn similar constitutional challenges.
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 2021 introduced and passed the Tribunals Reforms Act with provisions almost identical to those that were struck down.
You may also like
Exit Polls: Dy CM, Bihar BJP thank voters and party workers
Manchester police incident LIVE: Armed cops and ambulances swarm Cheetham
Is Chet Holmgren playing tonight vs Golden State Warriors? Latest update on the Oklahoma City Thunder star's injury report (November 11, 2025)
Air India completes first phase of legacy retrofit programme; 104 A320 family aircraft now feature new or upgraded cabin interiors
National Biodiversity Authority releases patent-linked access benefit-sharing of ₹43.22 lakh for the first time
