Whether Directions To Amend Tribunal Rules Are Akin To Directing Parliament To Legislate? Supreme Court Asks In Madras Bar Association Case
Live LawThe Supreme Court on Thursday considered whether directions issued by it to the Centre to amend the Rules framed by it are akin to directing the Parliament to legislate in a particular manner, thereby denuding the Parliament of its power to make law. This was followed by the impugned Ordinance of 2021 introducing a minimum age limit of 50 years for appointment as Tribunal Members; fixing their term as 4 years as against the 5 required by the SC; re-introducing the idea of a panel of two names being recommended by the Search Cum Selection Committee ; diluting the SC direction by saying that the Central Government should make appointments "preferably within 3 months"; etc. When senior advocate Arvind Datar was making his rejoinder submissions for the petitioner-organisation, Justice Gupta asked him, "In the writ petition filed to challenge the 2020 Rules, what was the relief claimed?" In response, Mr. Datar advanced, "Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati had said that it would take the person being appointed 2 years to only understand the service law and the functioning of the Tribunal. Mr. Datar's rejoinder Mr. Datar advanced that he is not saying that there is something wrong with a tenure of 4 years, but he insisted, that there should be a factual basis for the same also, like the Supreme Court has successively from Sampath Kumar to R. Gandhi to Roger Mathews to the 2020 judgment has offered for the tenure of 5 years.