During the hearing, the court observed that the Attorney-General had not raised the issue of a larger bench at the outset of the matter. Instead, the application surfaced at a late stage, after one side had completed its arguments. The bench made clear that its role is to adjudicate on merits and will refer to a larger bench only if it deems that necessary, not at the behest of a belated government filing.
The matter before the court stems from multiple petitions, including one filed by the Madras Bar Association, contesting the Act’s constitutionality. The plaintiffs argue that the legislation infringes the basic principle of judicial independence by setting uniform service conditions and terms for chairpersons and members of tribunals, and by re-enacting provisions previously struck down by the court.
The government’s counsel urged the court to allow the legislation to operate and to refrain from setting it aside immediately. The Attorney-General emphasised that the Act followed “due deliberation” and that it should be permitted to gain experience. He submitted that it would undermine institutional stability to reject the entire statute without seeing how it functions in practice.
In its earlier jurisprudence, the court has held that tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies and must maintain independence from the executive. Key factors in ensuring this independence include the appointment process, composition of tribunals, terms of office and administrative structure. The Act under scrutiny had vested appointments in a search-cum-selection committee and set uniform age and tenure conditions that critics say replicate provisions already struck down when embodied in an ordinance.
While the government claims the provisions would streamline the administration of tribunals and promote uniform standards across bodies, opponents argue the measure undermines the independence of members by lowering tenure length and reducing the minimum experience required for appointment. The court struck down the earlier ordinance that had reduced tenure to four years, set the upper age limit for chairpersons at 70 and members at 67, and imposed a minimum age of 50 for new appointments.
The hearing on the petitions commenced mid-October and has progressed to final arguments, with the current bench signalling that it will not defer proceedings merely because of a last-minute application for a larger bench. The matter will be taken up again for further arguments before a decision is reserved.