"Not fair": Supreme Court on request to adjourn Tribunal Reforms Act challenge

The Supreme Court today was visibly upset over a request made on behalf of the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani to adjourn the case concerning challenge to Tribunal Reforms Act, which is listed tomorrow for hearing.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati requested for an adjournment on the Attorney's behalf stating that he had an internation arbitration scheduled for tomorrow.

To this the CJI Gavai said, "We have accommodated him twice. This is not fair to the Court. You tell us frankly if you want to keep this after 24th...". It is to be noted that CJI Gavai is set to retire on November 24th.

Few days back, The Supreme Court had questioned Union of India's plea to refer the petition challenging the validity of Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 to a larger bench of five judges. A CJI BR Gavai led bench called the application by the Union government a tactic to avoid his bench, especially when that matter had been heard for quiet some time. CJI had remarked, “We don't expect the Union of India to indulge in such a tactic.” In response, Attorney General R Venkataramani had then said, “With great respect, please do not call it a tactic.”

The plea filed before Supreme Court by Madras Bar Association and others has alleged that the section 3(1), 3(7), 5, 7(1) of the Act violates Article 14, 21, 50 of the Constitution of India.

Central Government had in its response submitted that Tribunal Reform's Act, 2021 does not violate fundamental rights or any provision of the Constitution and that it is wholly within competency to frame it. The reply filed by the Central Government had said that Act is a culmination of a series of decisions of the Supreme Court and an equal number of statutes and rules in regard to the same matter, which is unprecedented in the history of the Supreme Court. Center had submitted, "It has been held in a series of cases including by two Constitutional Bench decisions and by a 7 judges bench of this Hon'ble Court that basic structure in the Constitution can only be used to test the validity of a Constitutional amendment but has no relevance when it comes to validity of a statue."

The Act dissolved certain existing appellate bodies and transfers their functions to other existing judicial bodies, it also fixed the term of office for the Chairperson and members of Tribunal to 4 years, subject to an upper age Limit for the Chairperson at 70 years and 67 years for other members.

It also abolished tribunals and transferred their functions to High Courts. This action added to the pending cases in such High Courts. It abolished Tribunals formulated under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Copyright Act, 1957, Customs Act, 1962, Patents Act, 1970 and Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and transfers pending cases from them will to commercial or civil courts or high courts.

Central Government called the abolished appellate tribunals an "unwanted additional layer of judicial intervention". The lack of human resources (such as inadequate number judges) is observed to be one of the key reasons for accumulation of pending cases in courts. The process of rationalisation of tribunals was started by the government in 2015. Based on functional similarity, seven tribunals were abolished or merged by the Finance Act, 2017, and their total number was reduced from 26 to 19.

Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran and Justice Pancholi

Mentioning Date: November 6, 2025