NDLI: Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Finance Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24 Referred Case 25 Referred Case 26 Referred Case 27 Referred Case 28 Referred Case 29 Referred Case 30 Referred Case 31 Referred Case 32 Referred Case 33 Referred Case 34 Referred Case 35 Referred Case 36 Referred Case 37 Referred Case 38 Referred Case 39 Referred Case 40 Referred Case 41 Referred Case 42 Referred Case 43 Referred Case 44 Referred Case 45 Referred Case 46 Referred Case 47 Referred Case 48 Referred Case 49 Referred Case 50 Referred Case 51 Referred Case 52 Referred Case 53 Referred Case 54 Referred Case 55 Referred Case 56 Referred Case 57 Referred Case 58 Referred Case 59 Referred Case 60 Referred Case 61 Referred Case 62 Referred Case 63 Referred Case 64 Referred Case 65 Referred Case 66 Referred Case 67 Referred Case 68 Referred Case 69 Referred Case 70
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Disposed Off
Headnote	Tribunals – Finance Act, 2017 – ss.184 and 186(2) [as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021] – Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 – ss.12 and 13 – Appointment as Chairperson / Member of Tribunals – Procedure – Conditions of service – Age qualification – Principles of separation of powers – Independence of judiciary – Impermissibility of legislative override – Challenge to first proviso and second proviso, read with third proviso to s.184 (1) – Whether first proviso to s.184(1) which stipulated that a person below the age of 50 years was not eligible for appointment as Chairperson or Member was in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers as the Supreme Court judgment in MBA-III case [Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr., (2020) SCC Online SC 962] was frustrated by an impermissible legislative override – Whether the second proviso, read with the third proviso, which stipulated that allowances and benefits payable to Chairpersons and Members was to be the same as a Central Government officer holding a post carrying the same pay, was an affront to the judgment in MBA-III case – Whether s.184(7) which stipulated that the Selection Committee shall recommend a panel of two names for appointment to post of Chairperson or Member and the Central Government shall take decision preferably within three months from the date of the recommendation of the Committee, was also an attempt to override the law laid down in MBA-III case – Challenge to use of the expression ‘preferably’ in s.184(7) – Insertion of s.184(11) prescribing a term of four years for the Chairpersons and Members of tribunals by giving retrospective effect to the provision was also challenged – Held (per L. Nageswara Rao, J.) – The first proviso and the second proviso, read with the third proviso, to s.184 overriding the Supreme Court judgment in MBA-III case in respect of fixing 50 years as minimum age for appointment and payment of HRA, s.184(7) relating to recommendation of two names for each post by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) and further, requiring the decision to be taken by the Government preferably within three months are unconstitutional – s.184(11) prescribing tenure of four years is contrary to principles of separation of powers, independence of judiciary, rule of law and Art.14 of the Constitution – Though, there is nothing wrong with the proviso to s.184(11) being given retrospective effect, the appointments made pursuant to the interim directions passed by the Court cannot be interfered with – Held (per S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) (Concurring) – The first proviso and the second proviso to s.184(1), as well as s.184(7) of the Finance Act, 2017, are all void and inoperative – s.184(11)(i) and (ii) also void and unconstitutional – Declaration of Supreme Court in MBA- III case shall prevail and the term of Chairperson of a Tribunal shall be five years or till she or he attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier and the term of Member of a Tribunal shall be five years or till she or he attains the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier – Retrospectivity given to the proviso to s.184(11) upheld; however, without affecting the appointments made to the post of Chairperson or members of Tribunals, as a consequence of Supreme Court’s various orders during the interregnum period – Held (Hemant Gupta, J.) (Partly dissenting) – The first, second and third proviso to s.184(1), the use of expression ‘preferably’ in s.184(7) and the proviso to s.184(11) are legal and valid as such provisions fall within the exclusive domain of the legislature – The legislature has not nullified the judgment of Supreme Court on the above aspects as there were no such corresponding provisions in the 2020 Rules, which were part of judicial review process – It is open to the legislature to fix tenure of the Chairperson and the members other than four years as the tenure of four years was found to be not tenable in MBA-III case – s.184(7) which contemplates that Select Committee should recommend a panel of two names is however contrary to directions of Supreme Court in MBA-III case – s.184(11)(i)(ii) and s.184(7) are void as the Ordinance has reiterated the provisions in 2020 Rules – Challenge to other provisions not legally sustainable –Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020 – Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) (Amendment) Rules, 2021 – Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 21 and 50.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 332
Petitioner	Madras Bar Association
Respondent	Union Of India And Anr.
SCR	[2021] 5 S.C.R. 791
Judgement Date	2021-07-14
Case Number	502

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Ministry of Urban Development & Ors.

The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association Vs. State of Assam and Anr.

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr.

National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union of India

Telangana Judges Association and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India and Anr.

M P High Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Ors

People`s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Ministry of Urban Development & Ors.

The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association Vs. State of Assam and Anr.

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr.

National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union of India

Telangana Judges Association and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India and Anr.

M P High Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Ors

People`s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Anr.