MEMBER OF RAJYA SABHA CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL REFORMS ACT, 2021

Jairam Ramesh, Congress Leader and member of Rajya Sabha, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 (1)(7), 5 and 7(1) of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, before the Supreme Court. The Petitioner aggrieved by the impugned Act was passed by both houses and received presidential assent on 13th August 2021.

The Petitioner submitted that the mentioned sections are of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution. 

Article 3(1) of the Act bars appointments to tribunals below the age of 50 years. This provision is identical to sec 184(1) of the Financial Act, 2017, which was set aside by the same court. 

Section 3(7) mandates the recommendation of a panel of two names by the committee to the Central government; it clearly violates the principle of separation of powers. Sect 3(7) is also identical to sec 184 (7) of the Financial Act, 2017 that was set aside in the case of Madras Bar Association - IV vs Union of India.

The Petition stated another provision, section 5 of the Act, which fixes the tenure of the members to a short tenure of four years, adversely affecting judicial independence. He further submitted that the provisions of the Act grants discretion to the Central government to take decisions on the recommendation by the Committee is also violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Section 7 (1) allows the government to fix HRA at its own discretion other than in conformity with the parameters set by the court in the MBA-IV verdict.

Ramesh argued that the impugned provision undermines the power of the judicial review and supremacy of the constitution. It overrides the judgment of the court, which held similar provisions to be violative Part III of the constitution.

Author: Papiha Ghoshal