SC Irked over Delay in Tribunal Reforms Hearing, Rebukes Centre

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the Centre’s request to adjourn the hearing on a batch of petitions, including one filed by the Madras Bar Association, challenging the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021.

On November 3, a bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai had taken serious note of the Centre’s application seeking to refer the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench, remarking that such a move was unexpected at the fag end of final arguments.

The 2021 Act abolishes several appellate tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, and amends provisions concerning the appointment and tenure of judicial and technical members across various tribunals.

Earlier, the CJI-led bench had threatened to dismiss the Centre’s plea, which was moved through Attorney General R. Venkataramani, saying it did not approve of such tactics by the Union government. Following this, the Attorney General argued the case on merits on Monday, after which the top court had listed the matter for further hearing on Friday.

On Thursday, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati mentioned the case and sought an adjournment on behalf of the Attorney General, citing his international arbitration commitments.

“Very unfair to the court,” the CJI remarked, expressing displeasure at the repeated postponement requests.

Bhati informed the bench that the Attorney General had an international arbitration hearing on Friday and requested an accommodation.

“We have already accommodated him twice. This is not fair to the court,” the CJI said. “If you want to keep it after the 24th (of November), you tell us frankly,” he added, referring to his impending retirement on November 23.

When the ASG suggested that the case be taken up on Monday, a visibly irked CJI retorted, “When do we write the judgment then? Every day we are told he is busy with arbitration. And at the last moment, you bring an application to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench!”

The CJI also questioned why another law officer could not appear for the Union. “You have a battery of competent ASGs. When we were in the High Court, we gave up other briefs for part-heard matters,” he said, pointing out that the bench had kept its Friday schedule clear to conclude the hearing and spend the weekend drafting the judgment.

The court, however, agreed to hear senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioner Madras Bar Association, on Friday and to accommodate the Attorney General’s submissions on Monday. “If he does not come, we will close the matter,” the CJI cautioned.

Earlier, the bench, which also included Justice K. Vinod Chandran, had completed final arguments from the petitioners, including the Madras Bar Association. The judges were irked that the Centre had sought to refer the case to a larger bench after full arguments had already been heard.

“On the last date, you (Attorney General) did not raise these objections and instead sought adjournment on personal grounds. You cannot raise such objections after full arguments on merits. We do not expect the Union to indulge in such tactics,” the bench had said.

The CJI also observed that it appeared the Centre wanted to avoid the present bench.

The Supreme Court had begun final hearings on October 16 on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the 2021 Act.