2021 (10) TMI 885 - SC - Indian Laws

Vires of Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and 186(2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 - violation of principles of separation of powers and independence of judiciary - stipulation of a minimum age limit of 50 years for appointment - HELD THAT - The challenge to the first proviso to Section 184, which prescribes the age qualification, has to be seen from several angles. First, the underlying parent statutes which created the Tribunals (ITAT, CESTAT, TDSAT, CAT) did not prescribe, as an eligibility criterion for selection of candidates as members, any minimum age. The prescription of 50 years as a minimum eligibility criterion, in the opinion of this Court, is without any rationale. The ITAT has existed for the last 79 years; no less than 33 of its members were appointed as judges of various High Courts; one of them (Ranganathan, J.) was appointed to this Court. The CESTAT too has comprised advocates who have staffed the Tribunal efficiently. The absence of any explanation for the preference given to older persons, in fact leads to an absurd result - as was pointed out in MBA-III and as has been reiterated by L. Nageswara Rao, J. in his opinion. Prescribing 50 years as a minimum age limit for consideration of advocates has the devastating effect of entirely excluding successful young advocates, especially those who might be trained and competent in the particular subject (such as Indirect Taxation, Anti-Dumping, Income-Tax, International Taxation and Telecom Regulation) - Prescribing 50 years minimum age as a condition for appointment to these Tribunals is arbitrary also because absolutely no reason is forthcoming about what impelled Parliament to divert from the long-established criteria of giving weightage to actual practice, reputation, integrity and subject expertise, without a minimum age criterion, in the pleadings in this case, nor in any other cases. The age criteria, impugned in this case also leads to wholly anomalous and absurd results. For instance, an advocate with 18 or 20-years practice, aged 44 years, with expertise in the field of indirect taxation, telecom, or other regulatory laws, would be conversant with the subject matter. Despite being eligible, (as she or he would fulfil the parameters of at least 10 years practice, in the light of the decision in MBA-III) such a candidate would be excluded - the age criterion would result in filtering out candidates with more relevant experience and qualifications, in preference to those with lesser relevant experience, only on the ground of age. Given that the essential educational qualifications and experience in the relevant field are fixed for all candidates, for a classification based on minimum age for appointment (like in the present case) to succeed, the Union cannot say that it should be held to be valid, irrespective of the nature and purposes of the classification or the quality and extent of the difference in experience between candidates - In the present case, the rule has the effect of excluding deserving candidates, without subserving any discernible public policy or goal. Thus, the classification is based on no justifiable rationale; nor can it be said that the age criterion has some nexus with the object sought to be achieved, such as greater efficiency or experience. In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Assn. of India 2007 (12) TMI 448 - SUPREME COURT one of the issues was the bar to employment of anyone less than 25 years of age in the hotel industry. This Court held that such age discrimination was unsustainable, and struck it down. In the present case, therefore, the qualification of a minimum age of 50 years as essential for appointment, is discriminatory because it is neither shown to have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e. appointing the most meritorious candidates; nor is it shown to be based on any empirical study or data that such older candidates fare better, or that younger candidates with more relevant experience would not be as good, as members of Tribunals. It is plain and simple, discrimination based on age - the Tribunals which were reorganized by the Finance Act, 2017 and now, through the impugned ordinance, exercise judicial functions of the State, interpret and enforce the law, in the course of adjudication of disputes. As repeatedly emphasized by this court in previous Constitution Bench judgments, appointment of members (of such Tribunals), their conditions of service, manner of selection, remuneration and security of tenure are vital to their efficiency and independent functioning. The manner of selection, conditions of eligibility, rules for their removal upon proven misbehaviour and so on, are entirely different from public servants. In fact, the latter category, i.e. members of Tribunals not drawn from public service sources, are not even holders of civil posts or members of any encadred civil service. This has been clarified in at least two judgments of this Court. They are not governed by Article 311 of the Constitution, nor are their conditions of service laid out in rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Such being the position, the argument of parity, in the opinion of the Court, is entirely devoid of merit. Nor is the argument of the Attorney General that a uniform age is necessary, merited. There is no material to show that members recruited on the technical side, such as experts in engineering, scientific or other technical fields would be suitable only after they cross the age of 50. In fact, one can complete a doctoral thesis and become a holder of a Ph.D at the time that she or he is 30 years or even below - the Union s argument that 50 years is necessary as it brings about parity between the members of the civil services who are eligible to be considered in their stream for Tribunals or that there is an overall uniformity, is without merit and accordingly rejected. The proviso to Section 184(1), inserted by the impugned ordinance is declared void. A declaration is issued that all candidates, otherwise eligible on their merit, based on qualifications and experience in the relevant field, are entitled to be considered, without reference to the impugned minimum age (of 50 years) criteria - The sheer volume of pendency is an indicator of the substantial judicial functions carried out by Tribunals, necessitating that they be manned by efficient, well qualified judicial and technical members. It is necessary that the Union expedite the process of appointments to Tribunals, towards ensuring swifter, and efficacious justice delivery. The first proviso to Section 184(1) of the Finance Act, 2017, introduced by Section 12 of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 is hereby declared void and inoperative. Similarly, the second proviso to Section 184(1) of the Finance Act, 2017, introduced by Section 12 of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 is held to be void and inoperative - Section 184(7) of the Finance Act, 2017, introduced by of the Finance Act, 2017 introduced by Section 12 of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 is hereby declared void and inoperative. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.
2. Constitutionality of Sections 184 and 186(2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.
3. Violation of Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution of India.
4. Principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary.
5. Validity of the minimum age requirement of 50 years for appointment as Chairperson or Member.
6. Validity of the allowances and benefits payable to Chairpersons and Members.
7. Validity of Section 184(7) regarding the recommendation of a panel of two names for each post.
8. Validity of Section 184(11) fixing the tenure of Chairpersons and Members at four years.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021:
The Madras Bar Association challenged these sections as ultra vires Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution, arguing they violate the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. The Court found that the provisions were an attempt to circumvent previous judgments and declared them unconstitutional.

2. Constitutionality of Sections 184 and 186(2) of the Finance Act, 2017:
The amendments made by the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance were scrutinized. The Court declared certain amendments, such as the minimum age requirement of 50 years and the tenure of four years for Chairpersons and Members, as unconstitutional because they contradicted earlier judgments and violated the principle of judicial independence.

3. Violation of Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution:
The Court held that the impugned provisions violated Article 14 (Equality before Law) as they were arbitrary and lacked a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The provisions also infringed upon judicial independence, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

4. Principles of Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary:
The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the separation of powers. It held that the legislative amendments were an impermissible legislative override of judicial decisions, thus violating the principle of separation of powers.

5. Validity of the Minimum Age Requirement of 50 Years:
The Court found the minimum age requirement of 50 years for appointment as Chairperson or Member to be arbitrary and discriminatory. It noted that this requirement excluded competent advocates and other professionals under 50 years of age, which was contrary to previous judgments that emphasized the inclusion of younger professionals to ensure a longer tenure and better service.

6. Validity of the Allowances and Benefits Payable to Chairpersons and Members:
The second proviso to Section 184(1), which linked the allowances and benefits payable to Chairpersons and Members to those of Central Government officers, was declared unconstitutional. The Court held that this provision was an affront to judicial independence and contradicted earlier judgments that directed higher allowances to ensure decent accommodation and independence.

7. Validity of Section 184(7) Regarding the Recommendation of a Panel of Two Names:
The Court declared Section 184(7) invalid as it contradicted earlier directions that the Search-cum-Selection Committee should recommend only one name for each post to limit executive discretion and ensure judicial independence.

8. Validity of Section 184(11) Fixing the Tenure at Four Years:
The Court held that fixing the tenure of Chairpersons and Members at four years was an attempt to override judicial decisions and was therefore unconstitutional. It emphasized that a short tenure would deter competent individuals from seeking appointments and undermine judicial independence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, and the Finance Act, 2017, as unconstitutional. It emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the separation of powers, holding that the impugned provisions violated these principles and were arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court directed that appointments to Tribunals should be made in accordance with the principles laid down in previous judgments to ensure judicial independence and effective administration of justice.