Tribunals – Finance Act, 2017 – Finance Act, 2017, a ‘money bill’ or not u/Art.110 – Validity of the Act, 2017 – Held: The majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) pronounced the nature of the impugned enactment without first delineating the scope of Art.110(1) and principles for interpretation or the repercussions of such process – The majority dictum in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) did not substantially discuss the effect of the word ‘only’ in Art.110(1) and offers little guidance on the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a ‘Money Bill’ do not conform to Art. 110 (1) (a) (b) – Without expressing a firm and final opinion, the analysis in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) made its application difficult to the present case and raises a potential conflict between the judgments of Coordinate Benches – Being a Bench of equal strength as that in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5), the batch of matters directed to be referred to the Larger Bench.

Tribunals – Finance Act, 2017 – S. 184 – Constitutionality of s. 184 on account of excessive delegations – Held s.184 does not suffer from excessive delegations of legislative functions as there are adequate principles to guide framing of delegated legislation, which would include the binding dictums of the Supreme Court – The objects of the parent enactments as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.K. Jain, L. Chandra Kumar, R. Gandhi, Madras Bar Association and Gujarat Urja Vikas undoubtedly bind the delegate and mandatorily requires the delegate u/s. 184 to act strictly in conformity with these decisions and the objects of delegated legislation stipulated in the statutes.

Tribunals – The Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 – Conformity of the Rules with the judicial principles inherent in the Constitutional scheme as established by the Supreme Court – Held: The composition of the search-cum-Selection Committees under the Rules amounts to excessive interference of the Executive in appointment of members and presiding offices of statutory Tribunals and it is detrimental to the independence of Judiciary – In addition to this, there has been a blatant dilution of judicial character in appointments whereby candidates without any judicial experience are prescribed to be eligible for adjudicatory posts such as that of the presiding Officer – Therefore, the Rules have an effect of dilution of the judicial character in adjudicatory positions – Further, earlier removal of members or presiding officer was done after an enquiry by the Supreme Court Judges and with necessary consultation with the Chief Justice of India, under the present Rules it is permissible for the Central Government to appoint an enquiry Committee for removal of any presiding officer or member on its own – The Members and Presiding Officers of Tribunals cannot be removed without either the concurrence of the Judiciary or in the manner specified in the Constitution for Constitutional Court Judges – Also, there must be uniform age of superannuation for all members in all the Tribunals, the Rules demonstrate disparity in age of superannuation of Members and Chairpersons/Presiding Officers of different Tribunals – Furthermore, there is inconsistency within the Rules with regard to the tenure prescribed for the Members of Tribunals insofar as a fixed tenure of three years for both direct appointments from the Bar and appointment of retired judicial officers or judges of High Court or Supreme Court – It is also discriminatory to the extent that it attempts to create equality between unequal classes – Therefore, the Rules suffer from various infirmities and are contrary to the Parent enactment and the principles envisaged in the Constitution, resultantly, directed to be struck down in entirety.

Tribunals – Finance Act, 2017 – Whether there should be a single Nodal Agency for administration of all Tribunals – Held: It may not be very crucial as to which Ministry or Department performs the duties of Nodal Agency for a Tribunal, but what is of utmost importance is that the Tribunal should not be expected to look towards such Nodal Agency for its day to day requirements – There must be a direction to allocate adequate and sufficient funds for each Tribunal to make it self-sufficient and self-sustainable authority for all intents and purposes.

Tribunals – A Judicial Impact Assessment of all tribunals in India – Need for – Held: It was directed in Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India for a Committee to be constituted to assess the need for Judicial Impact Assessment – Pursuant thereto, Jagannadha Rao Committee Report was submitted, it suggested that legislature must analyse the budgetary requirement of the staff, additional expenditure arising out of the new cases consequent to the enactment, the number of Civil and Criminal Cases expected to arise from the new enactment, the requirement of Judges etc. – The legislature has not conformed to the opinion of the Supreme Court with respect to ‘Judicial Impact Assessment’ and thus, has not made any attempt to assess the ramifications of the Finance Act, 2017 – Therefore, the Union of India directed to carry out Financial Impact Assessment in respect of all the Tribunals referable to ss. 158 to 182 of the Finance Act, 2017 and undertake an exercise to assess the need based requirements and make available sufficient resources for each Tribunal established by the Parliament.

Tribunals – Judges of Tribunals set up by Acts of Parliament under Arts. 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution equated in ‘Rank’ and ‘Status’ with constitutional functionaries – Held: There can be no doubt that executive action cannot confer status equivalent to that either Supreme Court or High Court Judges on any member or head of any Tribunal or other judicial fora – Tribunals are not substitutes of Superior Courts and are only supplemental to them – Hence, the status of members of such Tribunals cannot be equated with that of the sitting Judges of Constitutional Courts.

Tribunals – Direct Statutory appeals from Tribunals to the Supreme Court – Consideration of – Held: Such statutory appeals take away the inherent ability of the Supreme Court, as envisaged in the Constitution, to regulate cases before it by confining its consideration to cases involving the most egregious of wrongs and/ or having the greatest impact on public interest – It is evident that Supreme Court has lost its original character owing to the routine hearing of appeals through invocation of the discretionary jurisdiction u/Art. 136 – For the discharge of constitutional functions of deliberating on substantial questions of law, answering constitutional questions and resolving other issues of great Public importance, it is essential that Supreme Court has adequate time to apply its mind and consider matters in depth the practice of bringing every second case before the Supreme Court u/Art. 136 must be deprecated – Therefore, the Union of India in consultation with either the Law Commission or any other expert body revisit such provisions under various enactments providing for direct appeals to the Supreme Court against orders of Tribunals, and instead provide appeals to Division Benches of the High Courts, if at all necessary.

Tribunals – Amalgamation of Existing Tribunals and setting up of Benches – Need for – Held: The ‘importance’ in distribution of case-load and inconsistencies in nature, location and functioning of Tribunals require urgent attention – It is essential that after conducting a Judicial Impact Assessment, Tribunals be amalgamated with others dealing with similar areas of law, to ensure effective utilisation of resources and to facilitate access to justice – Therefore, the Union Government directed to carry out an appropriate exercise for amalgamation of existing Tribunals adopting the test of homogeneity of the subject matters to be dealt with and thereafter constitute adequate number of Benches Commensurate with the existing and anticipated volume of work.

Tribunals – Tribunalisation – A global trend – Discussed.