The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the Centre’s request to adjourn the hearing on a batch of pleas, including the one filed by the Madras Bar Association, challenging the constitutional validity of the 2021 law on tribunal reforms. On November 3, a bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai took strong note of the Centre’s application seeking a direction to refer to a five-judge bench the pleas challenging the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021, saying that it did not expect this from the Government at the fag end of the final hearing.
The 2021 Act abolishes certain Appellate Tribunals, including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal and amends various terms related to the appointment and tenure of judicial and other members of various Tribunals.
The CJI-led bench had then threatened dismissal of the Centre’s plea, moved through Attorney General R Venkatararamani to get the matters referred to a larger bench, saying it did not approve such tactics from the Union Government.
This led the AG to argue the case on merits on Monday and after that the bench fixed the hearing on Friday.
On Thursday, Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati mentioned the matter and sought an adjournment on behalf of the attorney general, citing the latter’s international arbitration commitments. “Very unfair to the court,” the CJI said. The ASG said that the Attorney General has an international arbitration scheduled on Friday and hence sought an accommodation. “We have accommodated him for so much time. We have accommodated him twice. This is not fair to the court,” the CJI again said.
“If you want to keep it after 24 (November), you tell us frankly,” the CJI, who is retiring on November 23, told Bhati. When ASG Bhati suggested the matter be taken up on Monday, the visibly irked Chief Justice remarked, “When do we write the judgment then? Every day we are told he’s busy with arbitration. At the last moment, you come with an application to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench!”
The CJI also questioned why another law officer could not represent the Union in the matter. “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, adding that the bench had kept its Friday schedule clear to conclude hearings and use the weekend to prepare the judgment. Ultimately, the bench agreed to hear senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioner Madras Bar Association, on Friday and accommodate the Attorney General’s submissions on Monday. “If he does not come, we will close the matter,” the CJI said.
Earlier, the bench, which also comprised Justice K Vinod Chandran, has already heard final arguments on behalf of petitioners, including lead petitioner the Madras Bar Association, in the matter. Previous hearing, the CJI observed that it seems the Centre wanted to avoid the present bench.
