In a landmark ruling with significant institutional consequences, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 19, struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, relating to the appointment, tenure and service conditions of tribunal members.
The judgment deals a major blow to the Union government’s broader attempt to restructure, rationalise and unify various tribunals under a common framework.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justice Vinod Chandran, held that the 2021 Act had reintroduced — with only marginal alterations — provisions previously struck down in a series of earlier judgments designed to safeguard judicial independence.
“Therefore, the provisions of the impugned Act cannot be sustained. 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 court ruled. It added that the Union government had “merely reproduced, in slightly altered form, the very provisions earlier struck down,” amounting to a legislative override that is “impermissible under our constitutional scheme.”
Setback for Centre’s unification strategy
The 2021 law had been introduced as part of the Centre’s broader drive to unify the administration of tribunals across India — bringing their appointments, tenures, salaries, and service conditions under a single umbrella to promote uniformity and efficiency. This strategy involved phasing out certain standalone statutory frameworks governing individual tribunals and replacing them with consolidated rules under the 2021 Act.
However, the Supreme Court held that this unification model could not come at the cost of established constitutional safeguards, particularly relating to tenure protection, age criteria, and selection processes that ensure independence from the executive. The court’s insistence that earlier judicial directions cannot be diluted effectively reinstates the pre-2021 tribunal framework.
Adding perspective, Manish Garg, Lead – Transfer Pricing and Litigation, AKM Global, a tax and consulting firm, said, “Tribunals in India were originally created to reduce the burden on constitutional courts, to set up specialised adjudicatory bodies and to offer faster, expert-driven justice in technical fields (taxation, telecom, environment, competition, etc.). Hence, it is very important to ensure the independence of tribunal members and give them certainty about their tenure and the selection process.
"By striking down the key provisions of Tribunal Reform Act, 2021, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message that judicial independence is non-negotiable… Further, it also established the principle that the government cannot introduce the new law with minor modifications, which were earlier struck down by the courts. Having a fixed and long tenure of tribunal members is very crucial for faster disposal of cases,” he added.
Tenure and Continuity: Immediate impact on serving tribunal members
The judgment has substantial operational consequences for tribunals across the country.
Since the court has restored the earlier regime governing appointments, all members appointed under the 2021 Act and its rules must now meet the standards set out in prior SC judgments. Under those standards, the superannuation age for tribunal members is fixed at 62, regardless of the date of joining or the tenure specified at the time of appointment.
This directly affects all serving members who are currently above 62 years of age. With the earlier rules now revived, such members apparently cannot continue, and their tenure effectively ends with today’s judgment. Tribunals with several members in this age bracket may face immediate vacancies.
Protected Category: Pre-2021 shortlisted candidates get extended tenure
In contrast, the Supreme Court has protected the service conditions of members and chairpersons whose selection or recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was completed before the 2021 Act came into force, but whose appointment letters were issued afterwards.
For this category, the court held that their appointments will be governed by the parent statutes and the conditions of service laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V) — not by the truncated four-year tenure introduced in the 2021 Act.
As a result, such members will now be entitled to an extended tenure up to the age of 62, even if their appointment letters had specified a shorter four-year term.
ITAT members to be governed by old framework
The court specifically held that all members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) appointed pursuant to the order dated September 11, 2021, will have their service conditions governed entirely by the earlier Act and rules. This restores the full pre-2021 tenure and safeguards, reaffirming the court’s position that tribunals — which often perform judicial functions in place of high courts — must not be subject to executive-driven constraints.
Meanwhile, expert Ved Jain, past president of ICAI, said, “In view of this judgment striking down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, all those members of the tribunal which have been appointed under the new rules notified on the basis of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 will have to pass the criteria laid down by the SC. It will be a challenge, particularly for all those presently posted members who are more than 62 years as on date…"
"As per this judgment, the superannuation age for members is fixed at 62 years, irrespective of date of joining or tenure… as against this all those members who were shortlisted before 2021 but appointment letters were issued later under 2021 Act will have an extended tenure up to 62 years of age as against four years stated in their appointment letter,” he added.
A reassertion of judicial independence in tribunal administration
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has once again underscored that reforms in tribunal administration must comply with constitutional standards protecting judicial independence. Any unification, restructuring, or streamlining effort cannot override binding judicial directions on tenure, selection autonomy and protection from executive influence.
The verdict not only halts the government’s unification model for tribunals under the 2021 Act, but also reshapes the immediate landscape of tribunal appointments — with several members likely to demit office and others gaining enhanced tenure protections.
Please click here to view the full story on CNBCTV18.