1. Challenge to the vires of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, concerning appointments, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members. (Para 4 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1947
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Madras Bar Association – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1018 of 2021, Writ Petition (C) No. 626 of 2021
Decided On : 19-11-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arvind P Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Brahma Prakash Soni, Adv. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR Mr. Nikunj Dayal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R Venkatramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv. Ms.Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Siddhanth Kohli, Adv. Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Sinhal, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kr. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Keshav C Thakur, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal (aor), Sr. Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Aditya Archiya, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv. Mr. Khushagra, Adv. Ms. Anusha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mrs. Anshul, Adv. Ms. Neetu Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Yadav, Adv. Ms. Vanya Gupta, AOR Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Ms. Ritika Singhal, Adv. Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Saini, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Adv. Mr. Lakshmikant Srirvastava, Adv. Mr. K. M. Abish, Adv. M/s Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Ms. Anusha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv. Dr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.A. Singh, Adv. Mr. Mathews Joseph Nedumpara, Adv. Intervenor-in-person Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, Adv. Mrs. Rajshree Rai, Adv. Ms. Modoyia Kayina, Adv. Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv. Mr. Shrayansh Singh, Adv. Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Parimal Rai, Adv. Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. M/s R And R Law Associates, AOR Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Adv. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.R.Takkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Yadav, AOR Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Yadav, AOR Mr. K. S. Rana, AOR Dr. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anurag Nagar, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Deora, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiv Nath Bind, Adv. Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sohum Dua, Adv. Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Disha Jham, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv. Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Porus F Kaka, Sr. Adv. Dr. K Shivaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. K Gopal, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Rahul Hakani, Adv. Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. Mr. Manish Kant, Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Megha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dushyant Pratap Singh, Adv. Mrs. Vipasha Singh, AOR Mr. B.M. Chatterji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Shreyash Shah, Adv. Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Zubin Dash, Adv. Mr. S K Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, AOR Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR M/S R And R Law Associates, AOR Mr. K. S. Rana, AOR Ms. Disha Jham, AOR Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Ms. Neelam Sharma , AOR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, AOR Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, AOR Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Shubham Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arvind P Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Brahma Prakash Soni, Adv. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR Mr. Nikunj Dayal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R Venkatramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, A.S.G. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv. Ms.Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Siddhanth Kohli, Adv. Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Sinhal, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kr. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Keshav C Thakur, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. S.N. Terdal (aor), Sr. Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Aditya Archiya, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv. Mr. Khushagra, Adv. Ms. Anusha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samarvir Singh, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mrs. Anshul, Adv. Ms. Neetu Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Yadav, Adv. Ms. Vanya Gupta, AOR Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Ms. Ritika Singhal, Adv. Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Saini, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Adv. Mr. Lakshmikant Srirvastava, Adv. Mr. K. M. Abish, Adv. M/s Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Ms. Anusha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv. Dr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.A. Singh, Adv. Mr. Mathews Joseph Nedumpara, Adv. Intervenor-in-person Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, Adv. Mrs. Rajshree Rai, Adv. Ms. Modoyia Kayina, Adv. Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv. Mr. Shrayansh Singh, Adv. Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Parimal Rai, Adv. Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. M/s R And R Law Associates, AOR Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Adv. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.R.Takkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Yadav, AOR Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Yadav, AOR Mr. K. S. Rana, AOR Dr. Prince Mohan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anurag Nagar, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Deora, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiv Nath Bind, Adv. Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sohum Dua, Adv. Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Disha Jham, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv. Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Porus F Kaka, Sr. Adv. Dr. K Shivaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. K Gopal, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Rahul Hakani, Adv. Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. Mr. Manish Kant, Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Megha Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dushyant Pratap Singh, Adv. Mrs. Vipasha Singh, AOR Mr. B.M. Chatterji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Shreyash Shah, Adv. Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Zubin Dash, Adv. Mr. S K Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, AOR Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR M/S R And R Law Associates, AOR Mr. K. S. Rana, AOR Ms. Disha Jham, AOR Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Ms. Neelam Sharma , AOR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, AOR Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, AOR Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Shubham Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR
The legislative provisions regarding tribunal appointments must adhere to the principles of judicial independence and not repeat the defects previously identified in related judgments. A National Tribunals Commission must be established to ensure compliance.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Independence of Judiciary - Legislative Override - Challenge against the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. The Act empowers the Central Government to alter the appointment, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members, undermining judicial independence and violating constitutional principles established in previous judgments (MBA (I), (IV), and (V)). The court found that provisions re-enacted from previously struck down laws did not cure constitutional defects and instead represented an impermissible legislative override. The court reinforced that independence and qualifications for tribunal members must align with judicial standards to uphold public confidence. Directions issued by the court include establishing a National Tribunals Commission within four months and ensuring adherence to established norms for tribunal appointments.
Result: The Act was struck down; the court reasserted existing constitutional standards must govern tribunal operations. (Paras 150-156)
Act Referred
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT: S.28
COMPANIES ACT: S.409(3)(a), S.411(3), S.412(2)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.145(3), Art.136, Art.14, Art.141, Art.21, Art.226, Art.227, Art.311, Art.32, Art.323(a)(d), Art.323(b)(3)(d), Art.368, Art.50
FINANCE ACT: S.183, S.184, S.186(2)
IMPUGNED ACT: S.3(2), S.33, S.4, S.5, S.6, S.7
TRIBUNAL, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHER AUTHORITIES QUALIFICATION, EXPERIENCE AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF MEMBERS RULES: R.9(2), R.4(2), R.8, R.9(1), R.15
COMPANIES ACT: S.409(3)(a), S.411(3), S.412(2)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.145(3), Art.136, Art.14, Art.141, Art.21, Art.226, Art.227, Art.311, Art.32, Art.323(a)(d), Art.323(b)(3)(d), Art.368, Art.50
FINANCE ACT: S.183, S.184, S.186(2)
IMPUGNED ACT: S.3(2), S.33, S.4, S.5, S.6, S.7
TRIBUNAL, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHER AUTHORITIES QUALIFICATION, EXPERIENCE AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF MEMBERS RULES: R.9(2), R.4(2), R.8, R.9(1), R.15
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege violation of separation of powers and judicial independence; Union asserts legislative competence and policy-making prerogative regarding tribunal structure. (Para 15 , 16 )
3. The Act reproduces provisions previously struck down without curing constitutional defects, amounting to an impermissible legislative override of binding judicial pronouncements. (Para 116 , 140 , 141 )
4. Legislative abrogation must remove the substratum of a judgment by curing defects; mere re-enactment of invalidated provisions violates the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. (Para 118 , 119 , 142 )
5. Impugned provisions struck down as unconstitutional; Union directed to establish a National Tribunals Commission within four months. (Para 142 , 151 , 153 )
6. Can Parliament override a judicial decision through subsequent legislation?
Parliament cannot directly set aside a judicial decision. It may retrospectively remove the foundation of a judgment by curing the identified constitutional defect, but mere re-enactment of an invalidated provision without curing the vice is an impermissible legislative override and a colourable legislation. (Para 118 , 119 )
7. Are separation of powers and judicial independence justiciable standards for reviewing tribunal legislation?
Yes. These are structural pillars of the Constitution, not abstract principles. Since tribunals exercise judicial functions, their composition, tenure, and independence are subject to searching scrutiny to ensure they match judicial standards and the rule of law. (Para 124 , 125 , 127 )
8. Is a minimum age requirement for tribunal appointments inherently arbitrary?
A minimum age limit without a rational nexus to merit or expertise is arbitrary and discriminatory, as it excludes competent younger practitioners without any empirical justification or public policy goal. (Para 96 , 103 )
9. What is the legal status of directions issued by the Supreme Court regarding tribunal service conditions?
Directions issued after identifying constitutional defects constitute law declared under Article 141. They are binding and cannot be nullified by legislation that simply reproduces the invalidated provision without removing the underlying constitutional infirmity. (Para 87 , 141 )
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
| INDEX | |
| I. | INTRODUCTION |
| II. | THE CHALLENGE |
| III. | SUBMISSIONS |
| IV. | THE TRIBUNALS JURISPRUDENCE |
| (i) S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and Others | |
| (ii) R.K. Jain v. Union of India | |
| (iii) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others | |
| (iv) Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association | |
| (v) Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another | |
| (vi) Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another | |
| (vii) Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited Represented by its Chief Manager and Others | |
| (viii) Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another | |
| (ix) Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another | |
| V. | ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PLEA TO REFER THE ISSUE TO A LARGER BENCH |
| VI. | ANALYSIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS |
| VII. | THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED ACT |
| VIII. | PROTECTION EXTENDED |
| IX. | CONCLUSION |
I. INTRODUCTION
“.........the provisions of the Constitution are binding upon the different organs of the State. Consequently, it is to be presumed that those who work the Constitution, those who compose the Legislature and those who compose the executive and the judiciary know their functions, their limitations and their duties. It is therefore to be expected that if the executive is honest in working the Constitution, then the executive is bound to obey the Legislature without any kind of compulsory obligation laid down in the Constitution.
Similarly, if the executive is honest in working the Constitution, it must act in accordance with the judicial decisions given by the Supreme Court. Therefore my submission is that this is a matter of one organ of the State acting within its own limitations and obeying the supremacy of the other organs of the State. In so far as the Constitution gives a supremacy to that is a matter of constitutional obligation which is implicit in the Constitution itself......
No constitutional Government can function in any country unless any particular constitutional authority remembers the fact that its authority is limited by the Constitution and that if there is any authority created by the Constitution which has to decide between that particular authority and any other authority, then the decision of that authority shall be binding upon any other organ.”
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly on 14th October 1949
1. These observations of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar aptly encapsulate the foundational principles that must inform the adjudication of the case at hand. The issues that arise go to the heart of that constitutional design. They involve questions concerning the scope and limits of judicial review, the contours of the doctrine of separation of powers, the manner in which legislative power is exercised by Parliament, and the corresponding bounds of executive authority under the Constitution. At their core lies the principle of the rule of law, which mandates that all institutions derive their legitimacy from, and remain accountable to, the Constitution. Above all, this case deals with the delicate constitutional balance among the three organs of governance, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
2. Our Constitution mandates the supremacy of the Constitution. The underlying principles embodied in it guide not only the judiciary, but also the legislature and the executive. While the function of the judiciary is to interpret, protect, and expand these foundational principles, the legislature and the executive are entrusted with the duty to give effect to them through law and governance. In their distinct spheres of action, each organ of the State remains bound by a common constitutional obligation: respect for and adherence to the supremacy of the Constitution. It is this shared responsibility that ensures the unity of purpose within the framework of the separation of powers.
3. The present case must therefore be examined against this broader constitutional backdrop, where the mutual respe
