Discord between Supreme Court and the Centre over tribunals, Pg22.

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court and the Centre are in disagreement over the control of tribunals, with the SC hearing petitions challenging the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
• The Madras Bar Association (MBA) challenged the Act's validity, arguing it nullifies a previous SC verdict and violates judicial independence.
• The Act sets a four-year tenure for tribunal members and a minimum appointment age of 50, which the SC previously struck down as "arbitrary".
• Significant vacancies exist across key tribunals like the National Company Law Tribunal and Armed Forces Tribunal, impacting their functionality.

Detailed Insights:

• The dispute began with the Finance Act of 2017, which empowered the Centre to frame rules for tribunals, leading to a series of legal challenges.
• The Rojer Mathew case in 2019 saw the SC strike down notified rules for undermining judicial independence, highlighting concerns over executive influence.
• Petitioners argue that a four-year tenure makes tribunal members vulnerable to executive pressure, while the government defends it as a matter of policy.
• Delays in filling tribunal vacancies, as observed in December 2022, have rendered tribunals "virtually defunct," hindering speedy dispute resolution.
• The core issue revolves around the balance between judicial independence, separation of powers, and the executive's policy-making authority in tribunal governance.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Tribunals: Quasi-judicial bodies established for specialized dispute resolution to reduce the burden on regular courts.
• Judicial Independence: The principle that the judiciary should be free from influence or control by other branches of government.
• Separation of Powers: The division of governmental powers among different branches to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.