Constitutional Supremacy Over Parliamentary Persistence

Introductory Note

This is the latest chapter in the long-running legal battle between the Madras Bar Association and the Government of India over how tribunals should be set up and run in our country. Tribunals are special courts created by laws to decide specific kinds of disputes quickly – like tax cases, company matters, labour disputes, consumer complaints, intellectual property issues, and many others – so that regular courts are not overloaded. Over the last forty years the Supreme Court has repeatedly told the government that these tribunals must be truly independent, free from government control in appointments, salary, tenure, and day-to-day working, because they perform judicial functions almost like courts.

Factual Background

The government brought the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, which:

• Fixed a minimum age of fifty years for appointment
• Gave only four years tenure instead of five
• Allowed the government to choose from a panel of two names instead of one
• Tied house rent allowance to ordinary government officers’ rates
• Used strong “notwithstanding any judgment” clauses to override earlier Supreme Court orders

The Madras Bar Association challenged this law saying it was almost exactly the same as the 2021 Ordinance that the Supreme Court had already struck down just a few months earlier. They argued that Parliament cannot simply re-enact something the Court has declared unconstitutional without removing the defects. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court heard the matter and on 19 November 2025 delivered a powerful judgment upholding the independence of tribunals and striking down the most objectionable parts of the 2021 Act.

Procedural Detail

The lead case was Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 2021 filed by the Madras Bar Association directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32. Another connected petition was Writ Petition (Civil No. 626 of 2021. During the hearing the Attorney General requested that the matter be referred to a larger bench saying the earlier judgments needed reconsideration. The Court rejected that request because the issues had already been settled by larger benches earlier.

Core Dispute

The heart of the dispute was very simple – can Parliament ignore repeated Supreme Court directions about how tribunals should be run and pass a law that directly goes against those directions?

The Court had said again and again – in 2010, 2014, 2015, 2020, 2021, and 2022 – that:

• Tribunal members must get at least five years tenure
• Advocates with ten years practice must be eligible
• There must be no minimum age of fifty years
• House rent allowance must be generous
• The selection committee must be judiciary-dominated
• Only one name should be recommended for each post

The 2021 Act brought back the very same provisions that had been struck down earlier – four-year tenure, fifty years minimum age, panel of two names, ordinary government-scale house rent allowance, and even added clauses saying “notwithstanding any judgment of any court”. The petitioners said this was nothing but an attempt to overrule the Supreme Court by legislation, which is not allowed in our Constitution. The government replied that Parliament has full power to make laws on tribunals and the Court cannot dictate the content of the law.

Detailed Reasoning

The Court began with a beautiful quote from Dr B R Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly that every organ of the State – legislature, executive and judiciary – must respect its own limits and obey the Constitution and the decisions of the authority created to settle disputes between them, which is the Supreme Court. The Court said India does not have parliamentary sovereignty like England we have constitutional supremacy meaning no one, not even Parliament, is above the Constitution.

History of Tribunal Cases

The Court then carefully examined the entire history of tribunal cases, including:

• S P Sampath Kumar v Union of India (1987) – Tribunals allowed but must be equal to High Courts in independence.
• R K Jain v Union of India (1993) – Tribunals must have judicial outlook.
• L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) – Judicial review is part of the basic structure.
• R Gandhi (Madras Bar-I, 2010) – Five-year tenure, judicial dominance in selection.
• Madras Bar-II (2014) – National Tax Tribunal Act struck down.
• Madras Bar-III (2015) – Corrected defects in Companies Act tribunals.
• Rojer Mathew (2020) – Tribunal Rules 2017 struck down.
• Madras Bar-IV (2021) – Tribunal Reforms Ordinance provisions struck down.
• Madras Bar (2022) – Same restrictions struck down once again.

The Court pointed out that despite all these clear judgments the government brought the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 with almost identical provisions. The Court said this is not just non-compliance it is a direct attempt to legislatively overrule binding judicial decisions which is not permissible.

Constitutional Disobedience Observation

The Court said when Parliament re-enacts a struck-down provision without curing the constitutional defects it shows a form of “constitutional disobedience”.

Issues Analysed

The Court rejected the Attorney General’s plea to send the case to a larger bench saying all issues have already been settled by earlier larger benches and there is no new substantial question of law.

Decision

The Supreme Court struck down the following provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021:

• Minimum age requirement of fifty years
• Four-year tenure provision
• Requirement of sending a panel of two names instead of one
• Provisions tying HRA to ordinary government scales

The Court upheld only the transitional provision that allowed members appointed between 2017 and 2021 to get up to five years if their original appointment letter said so.

The Court directed the government to immediately set up a National Tribunals Commission as an independent body to handle all tribunal appointments and administration. Till then a separate Tribunals Wing should be created in the Ministry of Law not Finance.

The Court also restored all the directions given in the 2021 Madras Bar judgment:

• Five-year tenure
• Eligibility of advocates with ten years practice
• High house rent allowance of ₹1.5 lakh and ₹1.25 lakh per month
• Judiciary-dominated selection committee
• Single name recommendation
• All appointments made under old rules protected

Concluding Note

This judgment is a landmark reaffirmation that in India the Constitution is supreme not Parliament and not even the Supreme Court. No organ of the State can behave as if it is above the Constitution. The repeated attempts by the government to bring back struck-down provisions have been firmly rebuffed. By striking down the age and tenure restrictions and ordering a National Tribunals Commission the Court has tried to finally settle a forty-year-old problem. Whether the government will now comply in letter and spirit or come back with new legislation remains to be seen but this judgment has sent the strongest possible message that judicial independence cannot be compromised.

Case Information

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi