Constitutional Supremacy Over Parliamentary Persistence
Inroductory Note:This is the latest chapter in the long-running legal battle between the Madras Bar Association and the Government of India over how tribunals should be set up and run in our country. Tribunals are special courts created by laws to decide specific kinds of disputes quickly – like tax cases, company matters, labour disputes, consumer complaints, intellectual property issues, and many others – so that regular courts are not overloaded. Over the last forty years the Supreme Court has repeatedly told the government that these tribunals must be truly independent, free from government control in appointments, salary, tenure, and day-to-day working, because they perform judicial functions almost like courts.
Factual Background: The government brought the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, which fixed a minimum age of fifty years for appointment, gave only four years tenure instead of five, allowed the government to choose from a panel of two names instead of one, tied house rent allowance to ordinary government officers’ rates, and used strong “notwithstanding any judgment” clauses to override earlier Supreme Court orders. The Madras Bar Association challenged this law saying it was almost exactly the same as the 2021 Ordinance that the Supreme Court had already struck down just a few months earlier. They argued that Parliament cannot simply re-enact something the Court has declared unconstitutional without removing the defects. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court heard the matter and on 19 November 2025 delivered a powerful judgment upholding the independence of tribunals and striking down the most objectionable parts of the 2021 Act.
Procedural Detail:The lead case was Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 2021 filed by the Madras Bar Association directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32. Another connected petition was Writ Petition (Civil No. 626 of 2021. During the hearing the Attorney General requested that the matter be referred to a larger bench saying the earlier judgments needed reconsideration. The Court rejected that request because the issues had already been settled by larger benches earlier.
Core Dispute:The heart of the dispute was very simple – can Parliament ignore repeated Supreme Court directions about how tribunals should be run and pass a law that directly goes against those directions? The Court had said again and again – in 2010, 2014, 2015, 2020, 2021, and 2022 – that tribunal members must get at least five years tenure, advocates with ten years practice must be eligible, there must be no minimum age of fifty years, house rent allowance must be generous so that members do not feel financially insecure, the selection committee must be judiciary-dominated, and only one name should be recommended for each post so that the government cannot pick and choose. The 2021 Act brought back the very same provisions that had been struck down earlier – four-year tenure, fifty years minimum age, panel of two names, ordinary government-scale house rent allowance, and even added clauses saying “notwithstanding any judgment of any court”. The petitioners said this was nothing but an attempt to overrule the Supreme Court by legislation, which is not allowed in our Constitution. The government replied that Parliament has full power to make laws on tribunals and the Court cannot dictate the content of the law.
Detailed Reasoning : The Court began with a beautiful quote from Dr B R Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly that every organ of the State – legislature, executive and judiciary – must respect its own limits and obey the Constitution and the decisions of the authority created to settle disputes between them, which is the Supreme Court. The Court said India does not have parliamentary sovereignty like England we have constitutional supremacy meaning no one, not even Parliament, is above the Constitution.
The Court then carefully examined the entire history of tribunal cases. It discussed S P Sampath Kumar v Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124 where the Court first allowed tribunals but said they must be equal to High Courts in independence. Then R K Jain v Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119 which said tribunals must have judicial outlook. The landmark L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 declared that judicial review by tribunals cannot take away the power of judicial review of High Courts and Supreme Court and that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Then came Union of India v R Gandhi President Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1 popularly called Madras Bar-I where the Court laid down detailed conditions for company law tribunals – five-year tenure, judicial dominance in selection, no government officers on deputation, etc. Madras Bar Association v Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 1 called Madras Bar-II struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act completely because it gave too much power to the executive. Madras Bar Association v Union of India (2015) 8 SCC 583 Madras Bar-III corrected defects in the Companies Act tribunals. Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd (2020) 6 SCC 1 struck down the Tribunal Rules of 2017 because the executive had majority in selection committees and suggested a National Tribunals Commission.
Then came the most important recent judgments – Madras Bar Association v Union of India (2021) 7 SCC 369 called Madras Bar-IV where a five-judge bench struck down the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021 provisions of four-year tenure and fifty years age and directed five-year tenure, generous house rent allowance, single name recommendation, etc. Just a year later in Madras Bar Association v Union of India (2022) 12 SCC 455 the Court again struck down attempts to reintroduce the same provisions.
The Court pointed out that despite all these clear judgments the government brought the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 with almost identical provisions. The Court said this is not just non-compliance it is a direct attempt to legislatively overrule binding judicial decisions which is not permissible.
The Court relied on several important cases to say that once the Supreme Court declares the law under Article 141 or issues directions under Article 142 or Article 32 the legislature cannot nullify them by ordinary legislation without removing the basis of the judgment.
Important cases cited were Property Owners Association v State of Maharashtra (2000) where legislation trying to overcome a judgment was struck down NHPC Ltd v State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 INSC 810 Dr Jaya Thakur v Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine SC 813 and many others.
The Court said when Parliament re-enacts a struck-down provision without curing the constitutional defects it shows a form of “constitutional disobedience”.
On the minimum age of fifty years the Court said it is completely arbitrary. A brilliant advocate of forty-four years with twenty years experience becomes ineligible but a fifty-year-old bureaucrat with no court experience becomes eligible. There is no rational reason for this cut-off. It violates Article 14 equality.
On four-year tenure the Court said short tenure makes members insecure and dependent on the government for reappointment which destroys independence. Five years is the minimum needed for attracting good talent.
On the panel of two names the Court said it gives the government a chance to pick their favourite and reject the other which again affects independence. On house rent allowance the Court said tribunal members must get proper accommodation or high HRA so they do not feel financially insecure compared to judges. Tying it to ordinary government rates defeats that purpose.
The Court rejected the Attorney General’s plea to send the case to a larger bench saying all issues have already been settled by earlier larger benches and there is no new substantial question of law.
Decision:The Supreme Court struck down the following provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 the minimum age requirement of fifty years the four-year tenure provision the requirement of sending a panel of two names instead of one and the provisions tying house rent allowance to ordinary government scales.
The Court upheld only the transitional provision that allowed members appointed between 2017 and 2021 to get up to five years if their original appointment letter said so. The Court directed the government to immediately set up a National Tribunals Commission as an independent body to handle all tribunal appointments and administration. Till then a separate Tribunals Wing should be created in the Ministry of Law not Finance.
The Court also restored all the directions given in the 2021 Madras Bar judgment – five-year tenure, eligibility of advocates with ten years practice, high house rent allowance of ₹1.5 lakh and ₹1.25 lakh per month, judiciary-dominated selection committee, single name recommendation, etc. All appointments made under the old rules were protected.
Concluding Note:This judgment is a landmark reaffirmation that in India the Constitution is supreme not Parliament and not even the Supreme Court. No organ of the State can behave as if it is above the Constitution. The repeated attempts by the government to bring back struck-down provisions have been firmly rebuffed. By striking down the age and tenure restrictions and ordering a National Tribunals Commission the Court has tried to finally settle a forty-year-old problem. Whether the government will now comply in letter and spirit or come back with new legislation remains to be seen but this judgment has sent the strongest possible message that judicial independence cannot be compromised.
Case Title: Madras Bar Association versus Union of India and Another
Order Date: 19 November 2025
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 1018 of 2021 (with Writ Petition (C) No. 626 of 2021)
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1330
Name of Court: Supreme Court of India
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Shri K. Vinod Chandran
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
