Supreme Court Rejects Government's Request on Tribunal Reform Act

Supreme Court's Strong Rejection of Government's Petition

The Supreme Court has firmly dismissed a petition from the central government that sought to refer challenges to the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reform Act to a five-judge constitutional bench. This request was unexpectedly made during the hearing after the petitioners had already completed their arguments. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, leading the bench, expressed strong disapproval, stating, "We did not expect such tactics from the Government of India. Such games with the court are unacceptable." Justice Gavai, who is set to retire in twenty days, indicated that the government's approach suggests an attempt to evade a hearing before his bench.

Court's Observations on the Government's Intentions

The bench remarked, "We have thoroughly listened to all arguments presented by the petitioners. The Attorney General did not mention at any point that the government wished to refer this matter to a five-judge bench. Now, after the arguments are concluded, this petition appears to be merely a strategy to delay proceedings." In response, Attorney General R. Venkataramani clarified that there was no improper intent from the government, asserting that significant constitutional questions are involved, making it appropriate to send the matter to the constitutional bench. However, the bench did not accept this reasoning.

Judicial Process and Government's Late Submission

Justice Gavai made a stern comment, stating, "This application filed at midnight is a mockery of the judicial process. We have heard the petitioners' arguments in full; the government cannot delay the hearing on this basis now." Nevertheless, the bench clarified that if it believes the case involves serious constitutional interpretation, it may itself refer it to a five-judge bench. For now, the court has postponed further hearings until November 7.

Constitutional Questions Raised by the Government

The government, in its application, argued that the case raises questions related to constitutional interpretation that should be considered by a bench of at least five judges under Article 145(3). It also questioned whether the Supreme Court could direct Parliament to enact laws in a specific manner and whether this would violate the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

Implications of Chief Justice Gavai's Remarks

Chief Justice Gavai's sharp remarks extend beyond a single petition or hearing; they reflect the growing discomfort between the government and the judiciary. When the Supreme Court has to assert that "the government should not play games with the court," it signals a broader concern for the balance of democracy. The judiciary, as the backbone of democracy, can only remain strong if the government views it as a collaborator rather than an obstacle. There have been multiple disagreements between the court and the government regarding the Tribunal Reform Act. While the government's request to refer the matter to a constitutional bench is not legally incorrect, the timing—submitting the application after the petitioners' arguments and at midnight—raises suspicions.

The Need for Government Accountability

Chief Justice Gavai's assertion that "the government is evading hearings" points to a troubling trend where constitutional questions challenging government policies are met with attempts to prolong the process. This not only undermines judicial discipline but also damages public trust in the court's impartiality. Governments must recognize that courts are not political adversaries but guardians of the Constitution. Their duty is to define the limits of power to maintain a balanced democracy.

A Call for Transparency and Responsibility

Ultimately, Chief Justice Gavai's rebuke is historic as it underscores the importance of judicial autonomy and dignity, sending a clear message that no power, regardless of its strength, can "play" with the judicial process. It is time for the executive to reflect on being transparent and accountable to the courts rather than confronting them, as justice remains the greatest strength of democracy.