Supreme Court Declares Minimum Age and Tenure Provisions for Tribunal Members Void, Upholds Independence of Judiciary

SC strikes down 50-year minimum age limit and four-year tenure for tribunal appointments in landmark Madras Bar Association v. Union of India case; affirms five-year term and inclusive eligibility norms for advocates.

In a significant judgment delivered on July 14, 2021, the Supreme Court of India in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 502 of 2021) upheld the independence of the judiciary and struck down certain provisions introduced by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021. The Court ruled that the first proviso to Section 184(1) of the Finance Act, 2017, which prescribed a minimum age of 50 years for appointment as Chairperson or Member of tribunals, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Similarly, the Court declared void the second proviso relating to allowances and benefits linked to Central Government officers, Section 184(7) concerning the recommendation of two names by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, and Section 184(11) fixing the tenure of tribunal members at four years.

Background and Legal Context:

The Madras Bar Association challenged the constitutional validity of amendments introduced by the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021, which imposed a minimum age limit of 50 years for tribunal appointments and curtailed the tenure of Chairpersons and Members to four years. The petitioners argued that these provisions violated the principles of separation of powers, independence of judiciary, and equality before law. The Court recapitulated the historical evolution of tribunals in India, highlighting earlier judgments such as Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2010), (2014), and (2020), which emphasized the need for tribunals to have members with adequate tenure, qualifications, and independence to perform judicial functions effectively.

Key Findings of the Court:

1. Minimum Age Limit Unconstitutional:

The Court observed that fixing a minimum age of 50 years for tribunal appointments was arbitrary and excluded successful young advocates with relevant experience and specialization, contrary to the directions in previous judgments (MBA-III). The Court held that eligibility should be based on qualifications and experience, not an arbitrary age bar.

2. Allowances and Benefits:

The provisions limiting allowances to those admissible to Central Government officers holding posts with equivalent pay were struck down as they undermined the independence of tribunal members. The Court noted that adequate remuneration and benefits, including house rent allowance (HRA), are essential for judicial independence. The 2021 Amendment Rules increasing HRA limits in line with the Court’s earlier directions were upheld.

3. Search-cum-Selection Committee Recommendations:

Section 184(7) requiring the Committee to recommend two names per post and giving the Government discretion to take “preferably” a decision within three months was declared void. The Court emphasized that only one name should be recommended to avoid executive interference and ensure judicial independence.

4. Tenure of Tribunal Members:

Section 184(11) fixing a four-year tenure for Chairpersons and Members was held unconstitutional. The Court reinstated its earlier declaration that the term should be five years or until the age of 70 for Chairpersons and 67 for Members, whichever is earlier. Retrospective application of Section 184(11) was upheld only to the extent it does not affect appointments made under Court orders up to April 4, 2021.

5. Legislative Override and Separation of Powers:

The Court affirmed that while the legislature has the power to enact laws, it cannot enact provisions that undermine judicial independence or negate the effect of judicial orders without curing the defects pointed out by the judiciary. Legislative attempts to override judicial mandates without adequate justification violate the doctrine of separation of powers and the rule of law.

6. Appointment of Advocates and Other Members:

The Court reiterated that advocates with at least 10 years of experience are eligible for appointment as judicial members of tribunals, in line with previous rulings. The Search-cum-Selection Committee must consider specialization and experience while making recommendations.

Impact and Observations:

The judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate of judicial independence and equality before law in the context of tribunals, which are increasingly critical for speedy and specialized justice delivery. By striking down arbitrary age and tenure restrictions, the Court has opened the doors for competent younger advocates and experts to be considered for tribunal appointments, ensuring a robust judicial mechanism free from executive encroachment. The decision also stresses the urgent need to fill existing vacancies in tribunals to reduce the mounting backlog and restore public confidence in quasi-judicial forums.

The Court directed that the declarations made in the judgment will prevail over conflicting statutory provisions, and all future appointments should comply with the principles of fair eligibility, adequate tenure, and reasonable service conditions. The writ petition was allowed to this extent.

Concurring and Dissenting Views:

While Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat authored detailed judgments striking down the impugned provisions, Justice Hemant Gupta concurred only partially, upholding the validity of the minimum age and allowance provisions as legislative policy decisions, underscoring the legislature’s exclusive domain in framing such conditions.

Statutory provisions

Article 14, Article 21, Article 50 of the Constitution of India; Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, Sections 12 and 13; Finance Act, 2017, Sections 184(1), 184(7), 184(11); Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 and 2020; Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) (Amendment) Rules, 2021.

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1855460