CJI Gavai, who retires later this month, observed that the government’s sudden plea appeared aimed at avoiding his bench. “We do not expect the Union of India to indulge in such tactics,” he remarked
BY PC Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday came down sharply on the Union government for seeking, mid-hearing, to refer to a five-judge Constitution Bench a set of petitions challenging the Tribunal Reforms Act, which prescribes uniform service conditions for chairpersons and members of various tribunals.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai expressed strong disapproval over what it described as a “tactical manoeuvre” by the Centre to delay proceedings. The court had already heard the petitioners in full when Attorney General R. Venkataramani — who had earlier sought an adjournment to attend an international arbitration — made the reference request.
“We do not expect the Union of India to take such a stand and play tactics with the court,” CJI Gavai remarked, visibly displeased. “We heard the petitioners’ counsel fully on merit. The Attorney General did not point out even once that the Centre would seek a reference to a five-judge bench.”
The Chief Justice, who is due to retire in less than three weeks, added that the timing of the plea appeared deliberate. “We will reject this application with the observation that the Union government seems to be attempting to avoid this bench,” he said.
READ: DMK Slams EC, Moves SC Against Roll Revision Process
READ: Manipur Tapes: Why “Tampering” Claim Raises More Questions Than It Answers
“Midnight Filing” Draws Judicial Rebuke
The Centre’s application, filed late on Sunday night, sought reference of the matter to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, claiming that the case raised “substantial questions of law” concerning the separation of powers and Parliament’s legislative competence.
According to the application, the government wanted clarity on whether the Supreme Court could issue a mandamus directing Parliament to frame laws in a particular manner — an act the Centre argued might breach the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of the Constitution.
However, CJI Gavai’s bench appeared unconvinced. “We did not expect the Union government to indulge in such tactics, that too by filing an application at midnight before the scheduled hearing,” he said. “After we have heard the petitioners fully, the Union cannot be permitted to take the plea for reference to a larger bench.”
The CJI clarified that the court itself retained the power to refer matters to a Constitution Bench if it found substantial questions of law arising during its deliberations. “If, on consideration of the arguments, we conclude that the matter warrants reference to a five-judge bench, we will do so,” he said firmly.
Centre Defends Its Move
Attorney General Venkataramani, while denying any mala fide intent, said he believed that the scope and impact of the Tribunal Reforms Act justified a larger bench’s scrutiny. He maintained that the application was filed “in good faith” and only after he realised that the issues at stake touched upon key constitutional principles.
“The request was made because the case raises questions fundamental to the interpretation of the Constitution,” he said, referring specifically to Parliament’s plenary powers to legislate and the judiciary’s authority to issue directives.
Despite the clarification, the bench remained critical of the Centre’s timing and approach. “Such last-minute requests, after extensive hearings, reflect poorly on the government’s conduct before this court,” observed one of the judges on the bench.
Background: The Tribunal Reforms Act Under Challenge
The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 was introduced to streamline the functioning of various quasi-judicial bodies by standardising the service conditions of their members. However, several petitioners — including lawyers’ associations and retired judicial officers — have challenged its constitutional validity.
They argue that the law undermines judicial independence by allowing the executive greater control over appointments, tenures, and service conditions of tribunal members. Earlier, the Supreme Court had struck down similar provisions in predecessor legislations, observing that tribunals must remain independent of government influence to uphold the rule of law.
The petitioners contend that the new law effectively reintroduces clauses previously invalidated by the court, defying judicial precedent and eroding the autonomy of these institutions.
A Sensitive Time for the Court
The hearing has drawn attention not only for its legal stakes but also for its timing — coming less than three weeks before CJI Gavai’s retirement. Legal observers say the Centre’s request could be seen as an attempt to delay a potentially adverse verdict or to have the matter heard by a new bench under the next Chief Justice.
“It’s not uncommon for parties to seek reference to a larger bench, but the timing here raises eyebrows,” said a senior Supreme Court lawyer. “If the application had been filed earlier, it would have appeared procedural. Filing it at midnight, after the petitioners finished arguments, makes it look tactical.”
After rejecting the government’s application, the bench continued hearing the Attorney General’s submissions defending the Act and adjourned further proceedings to November 7.
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching consequences for India’s tribunal system, which handles disputes ranging from taxation and environment to corporate law and service matters. A decision reaffirming judicial independence would strengthen the courts’ oversight over tribunal appointments; conversely, a ruling favouring the Centre could expand the executive’s role in judicial-style adjudication.
For now, the confrontation has exposed once again the fragile balance between India’s three branches of governance — the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.
As one senior advocate put it succinctly: “What’s at stake is not just a law, but the principle that no one, not even the government, should play procedural games with the Supreme Court.”
