1. Leave granted.

2. BRIEF BACKGROUND:
In the present batch of cases, the constitutionality of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 and of the rules framed in consonance has been assailed. While it would be repetitious to reproduce the pleadings of each case separately, a brief reference is being made, illustratively, to the prayers made in three matters to aid the formulation of core issues arising for adjudication.

3. The Madras Bar Association has preferred Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2012 seeking the following reliefs:
"i. A writ of mandamus, directing the Union of India, to implement the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi [2010 (11) SCC 1, para 96 at pg. 310] and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [1997 (3) SCC 261], paras 120 and 121 at page 65 to 67], where Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. Of India was ordered to take over the administration of all tribunals created by Parliament and streamline the functioning of the same.
ii. A writ of mandamus directing the Ministry of Law & Justice to promptly carry out a 'Judicial Impact Assessment' on all tribunals created by Parliament and submit a report on the same to this Hon'ble Court."

4. This Writ Petition was originally heard by a three - judge Bench on 18th February, 2015 wherein it was observed that the case presented substantial questions of Constitutional interpretation, necessitating hearing by a Constitution Bench. The orders passed from time to time reveal that, on 18th January, 2016, this Court perused the contents of the Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and other Authorities (Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014 and felt that "it would be more appropriate if observations made in Union of India vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association, 2010 (11) SCC 1 (in paragraphs 64-70) are also considered by the Government."

5. The matter was listed again on 27th March, 2019 and this Court took cognizance of non - implementation of the directions issued vide para 96 of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 261, which reads as follows:
"96. We are of the opinion that, until a wholly independent agency for the administration of all such Tribunals can be set up, it is desirable that all such tribunals should be, as far as possible, under a single nodal ministry which will be in a position to oversee the working of these tribunals. For a number of reasons that Ministry should appropriately be the Ministry of Law. It would be open for the Ministry, in its turn, to appoint an independent supervisory body to oversee the working of the Tribunals."

6. Thereafter on the same day, this Court opined as follows:
"Tentatively, we are of the view that the said directions ought to have been implemented by the Government of India long back. In the course of hearing today, learned Attorney General for India relying on an affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India in the year 2013, had pointed out certain difficulties including the need for an amendment of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. Learned Attorney General has also pointed out that the Ministry of Law and Justice is overburdened and may not be able to act and function as the nodal agency, which the Court had in mind while issuing directions way back in the year 1997 in L. Chandra Kumar (supra). There cannot by any manner of doubt that to ensure the efficient functioning and to streamline the working of Tribunals, they should be brought under one agency, as already felt and observed by this Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra). The Court would like to have benefit of the view of the Government of India as on today by means of an affidavit of the competent authority to be filed within two weeks from today.
The second prayer made in the writ petition has also been considered by us and in this regard we have taken note of compilation placed before the Court by the learned Attorney General, which would go to show the present vacancy position in different Tribunals, which is