Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, 2025 INSC 1330 -Tribunals Reforms Act Unconstitutional

Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 - They violate the constitutional principles of separation of powers and judicial independence, which are firmly embedded in the text, structure, and spirit of the Constitution. The Impugned Act directly contradicts binding judicial pronouncements that have repeatedly clarified the standards governing the appointment, tenure, and functioning of tribunal members. Instead of curing the defects identified by this Court, the Impugned Act merely reproduces, in slightly altered form, the very provisions earlier struck down. This amounts to a legislative override in the strictest sense: an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities. Such an approach is impermissible under our constitutional scheme. Because the Impugned Act fails to remove the defects identified in prior judgments and instead reenacts them under a new label, it falls afoul of the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. Accordingly, the impugned provisions are struck down as unconstitutional. (Para 142 )

Directions issued: Unless the constitutional concerns repeatedly highlighted by this Court in the series of tribunal related judgments are fully addressed and cured, and unless Parliament enacts an appropriate legislation that faithfully gives effect to those principles, the principles and directions laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V) shall continue to govern all matters relating to the appointment, qualifications, tenure, service conditions, and allied aspects concerning tribunal members and chairpersons- Granted Union of India a period of four months from the date of this judgment to establish a National Tribunals Commission. The commission so constituted must adhere to the principles articulated by this Court, particularly concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system - The service conditions of all such Members of ITAT who were appointed by orders dated 11th September 2021 and 1st October 2021 shall be governed by the old Act and the old Rules. 155. We also clarify that all appointments of Members and Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was completed before the commencement of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, but whose formal appointment notifications were issued after the Act came into force, shall be protected. Such appointments will continue to be governed by the parent statutes and by the conditions of service as laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V), rather than by the truncated tenure and altered service conditions introduced by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. (Para 151-155)

Legislation - Once the Court has struck down a provision or issued binding directions after identifying a constitutional defect, Parliament cannot simply override or contradict that judicial decision by reenacting the very same measure in a different form. What Parliament may legitimately do is to cure the defect identified by the Court, whether by altering the underlying conditions, removing the constitutional infirmity, or restructuring the statutory framework in a manner consistent with the Court’s reasoning. A valid legislative response must therefore engage with and remedy the constitutional violation pointed out by the judiciary. It cannot merely restate or repackage the invalidated provision. (Para 116)

Constitution of India - Article 32 - While the Court cannot require Parliament to enact a law in a particular form, it unquestionably retains the authority, and indeed the constitutional obligation, to examine the validity of any law that Parliament enacts. Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution. If a legislative measure infringes fundamental rights, violates structural principles such as separation of powers or judicial independence, exceeds legislative competence, or frustrates binding constitutional directions, the Court may strike it down. The inability to compel Parliament to legislate in a specific manner does not translate into an obligation to blindly accept any law that Parliament enacts. (Para 122)

Constitution of India - Article 32, 136, 141, 226, and 227 - Judicial independence is inseparable from the guarantee of judicial review, and judicial review itself is the mechanism that ensures that all State action (legislative, executive, or judicial) conforms to the Constitution. Similarly, the doctrine of separation of powers is not merely philosophical. It underwrites the very distribution of authority among the three branches of government. It is reflected in Articles 32, 136, 141, 226, and 227 of the Constitution, which vest the judiciary with the power to interpret the law, enforce fundamental rights, and supervise subordinate courts and tribunals. It is also embedded in provisions relating to appointment, tenure, and removal of judges, all of which insulate the courts from executive dominance. (Para 125)

Principle of constitutional supremacy- Indian constitutional framework does not subscribe to parliamentary sovereignty, nor does it vest unqualified supremacy in the judiciary. The architecture of our Constitution is firmly rooted in the principle of constitutional supremacy (Para 110)- Parliament, like every other institution under our constitutional scheme, must operate within the bounds of the Constitution. Its discretion is broad but not absolute. It must respect the principles of separation of powers, the guarantees of fundamental rights, and the structural values (such as judicial independence) that are part of the basic framework of our constitutional order. (Para 117) Our Constitution mandates the supremacy of the Constitution. The underlying principles embodied in it guide not only the judiciary, but also the legislature and the executive. While the function of the judiciary is to interpret, protect, and expand these foundational principles, the legislature and the executive are entrusted with the duty to give effect to them through law and governance. In their distinct spheres of action, each organ of the State remains bound by a common constitutional obligation: respect for and adherence to the supremacy of the Constitution. It is this shared responsibility that ensures the unity of purpose within the framework of the separation of powers. (Para 2)

Suggested Readings:

LawLens - AI-Powered Legal Research for Indian Laws

Discover AI-powered legal research tools for Indian law professionals

AI-Powered Legal Research for Indian Laws