The increasing complexities in the role of the state due to socio-economic changes in the society and the enactments of new laws have increased their work to perform regulatory role. As a result many regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies are set up. The result of this was the tribunals where the clear demarcation of administrative and quasi-judicial role, the relationship of each organ with the other organ with respect to tribunals especially executive and judiciary has remained as cause of litigation for decades and it seems that the issues is not well settled till now. This paper traces the origin of tribunals and the issue that pertains. The main battle is between the executive adopting modern governance on one side and on the other hand is the upholding of the constitutional values.

Introduction
Initially, there was no constitutional back up for existence of tribunals in India. It was the 42nd amendment which brought the major changes in the constitution ranging from preamble, list 7 to DPSP and formed the base for the existence of tribunals in India.[1] While tracing the meaning of the word, it is derived from the word 'tribune' which means 'magistrate of the classical roman republic. The objective behind the tribunal was to protect the citizens from arbitrary ruling of the magistrates.[2]

There is no proper and definite meaning of the tribunal is given apart from general definition like adjudicatory body. To under the meaning of tribunal some of the eminent scholars of the field can be referred ' 'A tribunal is an administrative body which performs the function of quasi-judicial body and is neither court nor the administrative body. The nature of tribunal lies somewhere between the court and the executive. The Supreme Court has laid down test in certain judgements as tribunals is nowhere statutorily defined. In the case of associated cement Companies Ltd. vs P.N Sharma[3] the Supreme Court has held that it is an adjudicating body which resole controversies and exercise quasi-judicial function as the functions are not purely administrative.

The test laid down are

1. Tribunals have resemblance with court but not all
2. Tribunals are constituted by the state and has statutory base for their existence. Like the competition commission is formed under the competition act, 2002.[4]
3. Tribunal has parallel judicial powers as the state powers.

With time there has been several situations arising with which the need of the tribunal is felt.'[5]Following are the reasons for existence of tribunal

1. In India more than 3 crores pending cases are there and regular court would take years to dispose all of them taking into consideration daily filing of cases. Thus tribunals take over the burden of the regular courts.[6]
    
2. Tribunals are also the source for the expedite decision i.e. they fulfill the right of speedy trial under article 21 recognized by the apex court in the case of hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary, state of Bihar[7]. Tribunals are relaxed with the procedures to follow and thus they reach to conclusion relatively faster.
    
3. Tribunals are important because they are specialized in the justice mechanism in particular things. A tribunal is brought for a specific purpose and thus the bench are the experts in the matter heard by the tribunal. For instance Competition commission of India hear the matters on the competition law and the bench are the experts of the competition law.

Misperception between the Courts and Tribunals
If the tribunal performs adjudicatory function and prima facie appears to be similar to the court of law. Then there may be mix-up between what constitute a tribunal and what a court is. It is necessary to demarcate a line between this two.

The misunderstanding pops up when one says that both are the creature of the state, invested with judicial power and perform adjudicatory function. The distinction may be very tinny but exist.

It is to be understood that traditional form of courts make the important difference with the tribunals:

1. The court come into existence with the spirit of the formation of the state whereas tribunals are the result of statute.
2. The court have more wider and general jurisdiction whereas tribunals have specific and limited jurisdiction.
3. The judge of a court does not bother of executive as its tenure, salary cannot be affected but all those are in their hands in the case of tribunals.
4. The judges are trained in law but the chairperson of tribunals may not have the knowledge of the law.
5. Court cannot fight as an individual party they need lis inter parties whereas tribunal or the authority may be one of the contending parties.
6. The court is bound by the procedural, evidence law to answer the case but the tribunals are made more flexible in this scenario. Also the courts are bound by the precedent but not the tribunals.
7. The court have wide ranging powers and can even interfere with deciding the validity of any statute but tribunal cannot.

It can be said that all the courts are tribunals but the vice-versa is not true. The tribunals as limited can be said as subset of the traditional court of law or the judiciary.[8]

What is Quasi-Judicial Body?[9]
The term quasi means 'not exactly'. Thus the general meaning of the term quasi-judicial body is that the body has the attributes of the judicial element but not all of them. Even statutory bodies are not the quasi-judicial bodies because they are the bodies recognized by statutes which may or may not have judicial function. In the case of Province of Bombay vs Khushaldas S. Advani[10] the court has held that if the word quasi is prefixed to any parent term that means the thing which is explained by that term has some attributes of the parent term but not the all. For e.g. quasi-judicial body is something which have the attributes of judiciary in it but not all of it.

When it is said that a tribunal is a quasi-judicial body, it is explained by the court in the case of Indian National congress (I) v Institute of social welfare and Ors.[11] It was held that 'when the body or person has the legal authority to determine the question affecting right of subjects and duty to act judicially.

It is also quasi- judicial when the body is empowered to decide the dispute with not only two parties but also one party against their authority like taking cognizance of some matters on their own by the competition commission apply discretion and to the judicial function when they follow the necessary procedure mandated to reach of India. They are distinct from the administrative bodies by the fact that they are bound by some element of judiciary like following of procedure. Thus, a quasi- judicial bodies stand between the two i.e. the administrative function and the judicial. They are in close proximity with the administrative function when they the conclusion.[12]

Reasons for Growth of Tribunals
The existence of Tribunal with the understanding was made clear but it is also necessary to understand the reason behind the growth of the Tribunal culture in India which has made tribunals for wide ranging of matters like the Tax Tribunal, Industrial Tribunal, Green Tribunal, film certification, custom and excise and so on. It is not that the tribunals came into existence in the 20th century but there were tribunals in the past when the commissioner of custom and excise had the judicial power 3 centuries ago and tax tribunal also existed. The tribunals gained prominence after the world wars when they were brought in existence from the legislations. Anything which gain relevancy or prominence in the day to day life is because of the need of the present time that it fulfills and has the potential to stay in the future as it is. The thing which fits the best in the present day survives and grow. The reason behind the constant growth of the tribunals is its characteristics of functioning.

That are as follows:

1. The activities that government undertake are very wide ranging and becoming complex in the modern days with new laws and situation which have overburdened the courts to deal with the matters effectively and the tribunal provides for the best supplement.
    
2. The traditional court system has proved to be less wanted because of the expenses, procedure and the time consumed in reaching the conclusion but the tribunals have the demand and the potential to dispose of the matters urgently.
    
3. Court deal with the matters came before them by the law, procedures and the evidence whereas the complex society needs some out of the box settlement through dynamic thinking which tribunals has.
    
4. Tribunals don't require the bench as graduate of law they are equipped with the experts of the field which the tribunal deal with.
    
5. They also take preventive measures unlike court which works after the parties approach them. Like the competition commission takes cognizance of any of the matter like the abuse of dominant position or the predatory pricing etc.
    
6. They are the experts in the field and work rapidly with technicalities and expertise in the field. For e.g. the Industrial tribunals needs order on lock out urgently or a film needs approval all this needs to be decided within a reasonable time span. Thus tribunals with all these features and compromising the procedural laws and all other methods which are not necessary works smoothly.

The above-mentioned characteristics are the reason behind the growth of the tribunals as they make the work convenient for every party having stake over the matters.[13] Apart from these reasons the tribunals started to get recognition from the other organs. The fundamental rights which is the most important part of our constitution has been given wide interpretation by the supreme court to include right to speedy trial through the case of Hussainara khatoon vs Home Secretary state of Bihar[14] and also Delhi domestic working women's forum vs Union Of India and Ors[15]. Both these judgement does not directly recognized the importance of tribunals but indirectly made the tribunals important as it emphasized on Speedy trial as fundamental right.

Legal Backup for the existence of Tribunals
The supreme law of the land is made for the public welfare and in this regard various directive principles were laid down, under article 38 it is the duty of the state to promote public welfare. Under article 39A, it is the duty of the state to promote equal opportunities of justice through various schemes which can include tribunals for speedy justice. It is a well- known maxim that justice delayed is justice denied[16] and if the opportunities are not provided then there will be no use of equal protection of laws under article 14.[17]

These things became the legal base for the 42nd amendment which brought into existence Part 14A containing tribunals. Articles 323A and 323B came into existence in which 323A talks about tribunals for answering of service and appointment related matter can be formed through the law of parliament and every aspect of its functioning like the jurisdiction, procedure etc. can be provided in the law so enacted.[18] Additionally in article 323 B provided for the subjects for which a tribunal can be brought like the taxation, foreign exchange, customs, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms, election matter, rent and property matter.[19]

In India, Tribunals have been formed for almost all the matter listed and incidental to the provided list. The power of the parliament under schedule 7 list III i.e. the concurrent list read with article 246 to legislate to reorganize the structure of the court system except the high court and the Supreme Court and under article 247 to have some additional courts by law. [20]

Constitutionality of Tribunals ' whether it infringe the basic structure?
India has adopted liberal democratic principles moderated by historical experiences and equitable development of all. India has British system of democracy with Independence Judiciary.

The Indian constitution makers were visionary and was aware of the events that may harm judiciary. To protect this sacred document it was important to have a strong judiciary. The judiciary with that platform has also reshaped many principles and protected the interference of opportunistic politicians. In this regard they have made the principle of basic structure in the constitution and have included certain concepts as essential part of it such as rule of law, democracy, independent judiciary, judicial review etc. Eminent scholars like Montesquieu have talked about importance of separation of powers as it protects the authoritarian regime.

The question has been raised time and again that the tribunal system infringe the traditional court system. That the tribunals affect the autonomy and independence of the courts as expressly held as part of basic structure by the court in the case of Supreme Court advocate on record association vs Union of India[21]. Tribunal being quasi-judicial body is also questioned as infringing the separation of power which though not rigid but strictly adhered when the question involves the judiciary in it. The constitution of India is so complicated Then whether the tribunals has crossed their limits?

India has the hierarchy of the court system which includes the subordinate courts, High courts and the Supreme Court. Where the high court and Supreme Court are the appellate courts and also have the writ jurisdiction. The idea of tribunals were challenged in the case of State Of Karnataka vs Vishwabarathi housing Building Corp. Society[22] where the existence of consumer forums at various stage was challenged.

The party contended that the jurisdiction of even civil court cannot be interfered with. The Supreme Court has referred to article 246(2)[23], article 247 read with item 11A and 46 of the concurrent list of the 7th schedule and held the parliament competent under this to provide additional courts and tribunals. The existence of tribunal is allowed because they the list provide the exception of the Supreme Court and thus the power of judicial review is not infringed. As far as judicial review of the court is not interfered with the existence of tribunals as a body is well within the limits of the constitution.

In the matter of judicial review case of Sampat Kumar vs Union of India[24] has its importance where the 5 judge bench answered the question of validity of administrative tribunals challenged on the ground of ousting the power of judicial review of the courts. Justice Rangnath Mishra speaking for the majority held that the matter of the judicial review is left unaffected and still the forum for any rectification is available. If the administrative tribunal has barred high court it still does not take away the judicial review completely as long as approach to Supreme Court is available under article 32 and article 136. In this case the Supreme Court held the tribunals as the substitute of the high court.

Also justice bhagwati concurred with the majority and held that if an alternative institutional mechanism is set up which is as effacious as the high court then it cannot be held that it takes away the power of judicial review. In the absence of same any curbing of power of the high court is unconstitutional as affecting the basic structure of the constitution.

As the validity of the CAT has been upheld, it was also considered by the constitution bench which afterwards came to draw their attention that the high court had been institution of importance and holds faith of people from centuries within their jurisdictions even when the federal court was not in existence. It was then noted that their performance was also unsatisfactory apart from exception. It was observed from series of matters reported that the tribunals lacked competency as they were lacking to follow the procedural norms.

They ignored the apex court's precedents and did not adhere to the basic norms. It was the reason that the people who believed in high court with closed eyes could not gain a bit of that confidence on the tribunals. Similarly, as observed the report of the arrear committee also concurred and reported same. It was becoming harsh for the Supreme Court to handle the cases and thus the court was anguish on all these situations raised.[25]It was observed by the Supreme Court that the tribunals were not able to act as the 'alternative institutional mechanism' effectively as given to them in the Sampath Kumar case.

In the landmark case of the L. Chandrakumar Vs Union of India[26], the questions of the tribunals affecting the basic structure of the constitution was again raised. In this case the Supreme Court decided to reconsider its ruling of the sampath kumar and referred the case to a larger bench of 7 judges. It is of no ambiguity that judicial review is the essential and basic feature of the constitution. The power of the high court under article 226 and 227 are the basic features of the constitution. Thus the parliament by law cannot take away the right to approach a high court that is not within their purview and scope of article 368.

As laid down in the case of sampat kumar that the tribunals are the alternate institution of the high courts which meant that the tribunals are there as a substitute of the high court appears to be bad in law. As the efficiency and the norms of the hierarchy of the judiciary in India like of the binding nature of the cases would have been affected and thus the court in the Chandra Kumar case said that the tribunals are the supplement of the high court rather than substitute. The decision was taken as a reformist step for the structure of the judiciary as the constitution of tribunals which would have impacted the image of judiciary and the working of tribunals which was not satisfactory.

After the chandrakumar judgement, as the time passed and the issue with regard to the judgement came up. There was recommendations to revisit the judgement, even before the judgement the Supreme Court has asked for the suggestions of the law commission.[27]

The issue is that if the matter is referred to the high court ultimately then the objective of setting up tribunal is not fulfilled. How the burden with the high court will reduce and how the judges will become technical experts in the matters. The commission has suggested that the division bench of the high court should hear the appeal from the decisions of tribunals or there can be national administrative appellate tribunals which will be headed by the judiciary like the chief justice of India or its nominee.

The retired justice of the high court and supreme court after consultation can be brought in the service because it is clear that the power of the supreme court under article 136 is misused and also proving to be time consuming and expensive for the people as well as flood of cases in the supreme court of country which is the body to answer important questions of law. To reduce the burden of the court it is necessary to approach the court in such cases where the appellate tribunal is not present. The appeal can however lie with the division bench of the high court. To keep up with the objective of the appellate tribunals appeal can lie in the Supreme Court in the matter of public or national importance.[28]

If we see the separation of powers in the tribunal which is also an issue in the ordinance in question. This concept is also an integral feature of the constitution of India as article 50 which says it is the duty enshrined upon the state to always maintain separation between the executive and the Judiciary. Thus any law which affects the separation of organs and if any organs breaches its limit and try to enter the domain of the other that power is unconstitutional and cannot sustain in India.

For recognition of separation of powers in the Indian constitution the judicial precedents are the case of Ram jawaya Kapur vs Union Of India[29] in which the court has held that though the Indian constitution do not as such says about the separation of powers but it can be deduce from the articles which defines the function of each organ separately.

Though not rigid it is the concept which is exercised in India flexibly. Also, in the case of Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain[30] it was held by the court that the Indian constitution is flexible in nature and the rigid sense of separation of power like the Australian and the American constitution is not applicable in India. It was also held that it is a part of the basic structure which cannot be affected even by the powers under article 368. Though not rigid but the powers is defined separately and it is the task of them to work in their scope provided under the constitution.[31]

In the case of Brahmo Dutt vs Union of India[32] when in the competition act there was mixing up of the regulatory bodies and adjudicatory function of the tribunal in which the separation of power or the judicial independence is sacrificed. There was also no provision for the appellate body in the act. This was held to be violative and infringing of powers.

The government however accepted the ruling and undertook certain amendments and provided for the appellate tribunal. In the case of union of India vs R. Gandhi[33] the madras high court has pointed some lacunae and asked for separation of judicial function from the executive and legislative in the companies act to which the government has reacted and modified.

In case of tribunals it can be noted that the member of the bureaucracy is the member or the chairperson of the tribunal which though infringed the separation of power but was allowed to be intact by the courts as the tribunal are not the judicial body but the quasi-judicial body so the strict adherence with the principle was relaxed. However as a medium of check the appellate body is ruled by the judiciary to protect the aggrieved from any arbitrary action.

The arrangement that is present today where the appellate tribunals exist can be traced as the arrangement on the base of the sampath kumar judgement however it has the representation of judiciary in it. The court has recommended in the R.Gandhi[34] case that the system should be made for the appointment in the tribunal in which the judiciary must have the dominant say because the tribunal perform the adjudicatory function.

The reason is that the tribunal should have the confidence of the people. It is compulsory to have at least a judicial member in the tribunals. The ordinance which will be discussed below is of the concern for the judiciary because as suspected the executive are allegedly trying to gain their influence in the matter of tribunals.

The power of judicial review is completely protected under the tribunals system in India. Although affected separation of power, as a flexible constitution it is the need of the time in dynamic society to adopt such changes at the same time having some measures to keep a check. With regards to this constitutional principles and norms incidental to it, we are going to analyze the recent ordinance and the situation that arose in the backdrop of the matter of tribunals.

Tracing the whole Tribunal Story
Changes that the finance act 2017 intended to brought into the Tribunals
Apart from the other changes that were made in the finance act 2017 it has made some significant changes in the structuring of the tribunals. The list of the mergers and the restructuring of the tribunals that took place are as follows:

1. The competition appellate tribunal will be merged with the national company law appellate tribunal
2. The airport economic regulatory appellate tribunals and the cyber appellate tribunal will be merged with the telecom dispute settlement and appellate tribunal.
3. The national highway tribunal merging with the airport appellate tribunal.
4. The employees provident fund tribunal merging with the industrial tribunal.
5. The copyright board merging with the intellectual property appellate board.
6. The railway rates tribunal with railway claim tribunal.
7. Foreign exchange tribunal will be merged with the appellate tribunal constituted under the foreign exchange manipulation legislation.

The restructuring so done does not seem to be so much problematic because by the list of the mergers it is found that the tribunals merged also has some functioning similarity with the bodies they are merged. However, all the mergers cannot be easily acceptable because some of the mergers are capable of raising eyebrows for e.g. airport economic regulatory appellate board merged with cyber and telecom tribunals, this is not easily adaptable.

The issue with regard to the structure of the tribunals has started in the recent time from the finance act 2017. A finance act is an act annually brought by the government and passed in the parliament which is a fiscal legislation to bring in to force the proposals of the central government. The main provisions of the act are basically related to the income tax, custom and excise, GST, cess and other reliefs.[35] It has brought many changes in the structure of the tribunals.

The changes brought raises doubt on the competency of the tribunals which are well competent to hear the matters before them except that the appeal goes back to the judicial system and the appointments that are made in this tribunals which are in the hands of the executive which is prima facie a threat for their working. Overall, they were not fully competent but were compromised with their way of working.

Then, in the year 2017 government as every year came up with a finance bill 2017 which surprisingly talks about the changes made in the tribunals. It was also declared as money bill by the speaker of the loksabha which is a debatable issue and allegedly done to remove the difficulties moved by the rajyasabha in passing the amendment where the government did not have the majority and also rejected the changes proposed by the rajysabha. It is also important to understand the provisions of the money bill under article 110 to further present points on this topic.

What is a money bill?
Money bill is envisaged under article 110 in the Indian constitution and is different from the financial bill under article 117 which deals about revenue and expenditure whereas money bill deals with the financial matters prescribed under article 110. The importance of it can be ascertained from the fact that many important matters like the aadhar bill, insolvency and bankruptcy bill were introduced as money bill.

The constitution prescribed certain conditions by which a bill can be termed as the money bill. It is also necessary that certain conditions like necessarily introducing it in the house of loksabha and requirement of speaker certification in the bill for terming it as money bill.[36]

The conditions under which a bill can be termed as money bill:

1. Imposition, alteration, abolition, remission and regulation of any tax
2. Regulation of borrowing of money by the central government.
3. Matter dealing with the consolidated fund of India or the contingency fund of India, the payment of money into or withdrawal of such fund.
4. Appropriation of money from consolidated fund.
5. Declaration of any expenditure on the fund or increasing of the expenditure from the fund.
6. The receipt of the money on consolidated fund of India or the public account of India.
7. Any matter which is incidental to the above matter.'[37]

The main factor of the finance act which makes it an issue that the central government through legislation and that too by introducing money bill tried to control the power of the qualifications and appointment, salary and allowances, term of office, resignation, removal. Thus the government through the finance act tried to control the service conditions of the tribunal.

The constitution has the provision clearly specifying that there can be no changes in the salary and allowance of the judge detrimental to him and thus the government has no such direct control to interfere with their autonomy. The tribunal which is also an adjudicatory body on which the control was intended to be claimed by the government can be detrimental to the independence of the judiciary. Tribunals are the part and parcel of the judicial system in India, they are just the expertise courts dealing with the specific matter.

The problem is also with the bill where it was notified by the speaker as the money bill. The matter does not pertains to any of the provision as provided in the constitution. It does not relate to the financial matters of the country or if it is as contended by the respondent then every matter should be presented as the money bill because every legislation in some way effect the fund of the country.

The judicial scrutiny of the finance act 2017 and the rules made under it was done in the case of Rojer Mathew vs south Indian Bank Ltd.[38]

The issues raised in the case are:

1. Whether there can be judicial review of the power of the speaker to certify a bill as money bill?
2. Whether the S.184 or Part 14 of the finance act 2017 and the rules framed under it are constitutional?

The act intended to bring changes in more than twenty enactments changing the structure of the tribunals. In an additional argument it is argued that amendment could not be brought through the finance act as it has been certified as money bill whereas part XIV does not satisfy the criteria to be certified as money bill because the conditions under article 110 are not satisfied. The rest of the act of the finance act 2017 can be treated as money bill because it has direct relation with the funds.

It has been also seen that the government takes this arbitrary way to skip the scrutiny of the bill or when they lack majority in the upper house. The question was taken before the Supreme Court in the aadhar judgement also where it was seen that the court has given mixed and confusing interpretation while dealing with the issue like they have gone to impliedly discuss the review of the act and later held that there is no question of review.

In the aadhar judgement they have not issued any proper guidelines for certification as money bill and also the court created ambiguity when it struck down one of the section of the act as violative of article 110 and held rest of the bill as money bill. In the rojer Mathew case the then chief justice ranjan gogoi who also wrote the judgement in my view correctly observed the lacunae that has been there in the aadhar judgement[39]with respect to the money bill.

The chief justice has noted that upon examination it has been found that the puttuswamy judgement have gone into the nature of the enactment without first clearly demarcating the scope of article 110. There is no as such directions from the court about the interpretation or any restriction from going into it.

That judgement does not provided sufficient material for the word 'only' in article 110 and also the role or the steps which the court can take when any enactment is not found with the conformity of the article 110(a) to (g).[40] It was held conclusively that the court interpretation was liberal and that can affect the bicameral structure of our constitution. Thus the conflicting judgement of the co-ordinate benches of the court can raise confusion.

Thus, justice gogoi referred the case to a larger bench and it also makes the point of judicial review of the finality of the speaker decision clear that it is subject to judicial review. The court has held that there is no bar on examining the decision of the speaker on merits when the issue has been raised on the point of illegality and unconstitutionality of the said decision.

However the court has clarified that there will be always be pre-assumption of the correctness of the speaker decision and it is the burden of the petitioner to proof the illegality. The said statement provided by the court is correct because the speaker of the loksabha is the body of high sanctity of its own according to the powers and position provided by the constitution of India.[41]

In this case it is also important to note the opinion of the Justice Chandrachud who has also dissented in the aadhar judgement. Justice Chandrachud had adopted new set of interpretations. This case is just the continuation of the journey of the opinon of justice chandrachud who has noted the history of the bills and then it comes to the main issue on the money bill that it decrease the importance of the rajyasabha as given to it in the ordinary legislation.

However the money bill is an exception, it is necessary to use the provisions efficiently. Justice has focused on the structure of bicameralism. Rajyasabha presents the interest of the states as well as check upon the functioning of the loksabha and prevents majoritarianism to set its base in the Indian context. Rajysabha present a balance of power and is an important constitutional body in the federal polity of Indian republic.

Thus it is necessary that if the money bill way is adopted by the lower house to prevent the conflict with the rajyasabha then the judiciary should step up and any such decision cannot escape the judicial review. After the remark going on the provision of the money bill, he has noted that anything incidental to the fiscal provisons can be added to the definition of the money bill and the restructuring and the changes that have been brought by the finance act 2017 in the tribunals of the country does not seems to be permissible under the money bill.

In the dissenting opinion, justice chandrachud sets aside part XIV of the finance act 2017 and the rest of the act sustains on the ground of severability. However, the dissenting opinion of the judge seems to be the ratio in the future. As the majority on doubt has referred it to the larger bench but impliedly they were of the view to set it aside.

The argument given by the respondent through the attorney general that the amendments to the tribunal can come under the money bill criteria as the expenditure made by the tribunals are levied on the consolidated fund of India which seems to be very vague and not satisfactory.

The bill seems to be malafidely certified as money bill for satisfying some other needs of the government enjoying through the vacuum in the law. Additionally, after the courts remark before referring the particular question to a larger bench it is impliedly clear from the bench expression that the present money bill will be prospectively declared unconstitutional and also the aadhar judgement would be overruled.[42]

Validity of S.184 and the rules of 2017
This section empowers the central government to make rules for the tribunal on:

1. qualifications
2.  appointment
3. Term of office
4.  Salary and allowance
5. resignation
6. Removal and also other terms and conditions regarding the chairperson, vice-chairperson and the post incidental to it in the tribunal and the appellate tribunal.[43]

The power given to the government through the act to make rules in the on matters as mentioned above is excessive delegation according to the petitioner because the matters related to the tribunal which is a part of the judicial bodies of the country is an important policy issue because the public faith and trust is attached with the bodies like tribunal which can have detrimental effect if the executive start to control it.

The government or the concerned ministries is the party to the litigation very often and if they start to control the selection process of the members of the tribunal then the autonomy of the tribunal cannot be imagined.

The court has upheld the validity of S.184 and has taken the view that the powers allotted to the central government can be delegated but the government should be careful while exercising the powers to keep in mind the law laid down in the parent enactments as well as the settled precedents of the R.gandhi, L.chandrakumar case and madras bar association case. [44]

It is clear that the judgement of the rojer Mathew and para 143 specifically is the guideline for the executives that any rule formed under S.184 should be in consonance with the judgement delivered by the apex court in cases mentioned above. The court has not declared that the power cannot be delegated but demanded for the strict adherence.

The one factor that the court must have taken note of in the judgement that here the matter related too many of the appellate tribunal which are working as supplement for the high court so they must be given protection of that kind and should be free from any kind of interference from the executives.

We have seen that the working of the executive is influenced by political vendetta in many of the instances and they have continuously acted in the violation of the orders of the Supreme Court which also raises doubt in their functioning. They think that they are not bound by the judgement of the Supreme Court.

The sanctity of the judiciary should be protected by not giving them the power to make choices in the affairs of the judiciary. The reasons behind repeated approach made to the Supreme Court is clear that the executive cannot be relied upon to function in the interest of the public welfare and the protection of the institutions. Thus, S.184 was held valid directing the government to frame rules according to the settled precedents.

Central government exercising its power under S.184 framed the tribunal, appellate tribunal and other authority's rule 2017 which provided for the condition of service in the tribunal. In the challenge before the Supreme Court in rojer Mathew case the court has struck down the entire rules in its entirety.

It was observed that the powers conferred on the government is arbitrary and violative of the basic structure of the constitution. The conditions of service, tenure, allowance, appointment and removal so provided infringe the basic structure of the constitution and did not follow the Supreme Court directions in the past.

In this regard the court has referred to various supreme court judgements like the madras bar association case (2010)[45] where the court has held that the legislature can do what are they constituted for but that is subject to constitutional limitation.

It has to take care of the basic structure principles such as the independence of the judiciary, rule of law and the separation of powers. The case was filed for the enforcement of the judgements of the L.chandrakumar and the R.gandhi which basically provided for the judicial dominance and role in the tribunal to make the tribunal as faithful as the judiciary. If the tribunals are the supplement and provided with the functions of the court or treated as court then the tribunals should have the characteristics of the courts like the independence and security given to the courts. [46]

In the case of R. Gandhi vs Union of India where the amendment in the company law providing for the NCLT and NCLAT was challenged. In this case the supreme court has laid down certain guidelines which are important like the tribunal must be an independent forum to approach, the power of the parliament is not absolute and they are subject to limitations of the basic structure, qualifications and eligibility criteria of the judicial bodies should be with the superior courts if this is not done the objective of the system of tribunal would be defeated and the trust and allegiance of the judiciary will be vanished, if the bureaucrats of the ministries are made as the member of the tribunal that too on lien basis then it will be against the basic structure principles, judicial member should be appointed in the body which is acting as supplement to the high courts, the appointment of the technical members in the tribunal should be reduced only when it is very much necessary, there should be security of tenure, if the appointment of the civil servant is retained he did not necessarily have the required experience in the law and also the public can have doubt on impartiality and independence.

If the appointment of the technical members of the civil services is started then the dearest ones of the government would be promoted to tribunals and will work on the directions of the government. Although some of the reasons are raised as doubt, the other are the factual situations which were laid down in the R. Gandhi case barring the jurisdiction of the executives.

It can be said that the decision in the L. chandrakumar has a similar tone with the R.Gandhi judgement to the extent it talks about saving the independence of the judiciary, rule of law, separation of powers and the scope of judicial review which are the basic structures of the constitution put at stake by the executive in the rojer Mathew case.

These judgements are the important reason which were overlooked by the executive while framing the rules for declaring the tribunal rules 2017 as unconstitutional and were struck down entirely.

The court has directed the government to come up with a new policy taking into consideration following points[47]:

1. The court has emphasized for the judicial dominance in the search cum selection committee because the executive are the litigating party in most of the cases so there can be interest of the executive involved while selecting the candidate.
    
2. The court has directed that the parliament cannot give essential judicial function to the technical members who are not adequately qualified.
    
3. There cannot be appointment of the chairperson on the basis of the discretion of the central government to whom they find them as useful and the person having requisite knowledge, ability and integrity. Thus there cannot be any vague appointment in the tribunals.
    
4. The removal of the members of the tribunals should not be left in the hand of the executive but it should be like the manner specified in the constitution or the constitutional court judges.
    
5. The tenure of the members of the tribunals should be considerable time because it increases executive interference and there can be biasness in the independence of the judiciary and many candidates not willing to join the post because of the short term that would make everyone uncomfortable and unstable with their affairs.

Thus the court directed to frame a new set of rules which adhere to the precedents of the above mentioned cases and also the guidelines issued in this case by the Supreme Court. The court has also directed for the judicial impact assessment of the tribunals as big restructuring has been done in the tribunals which was ordered in the Salem advocates bar association Vs Union of India[48] for the very first time.

The court has held in that case it is necessary to make it as an essential component of the financial memorandum of the legislative proposals.
The court is correct in raising doubt in the certification of money bill and referring to larger bench and also correctly held that the power so delegated has to be in limit and should be exercise in consonance with the constitution of India or the parent act.

Thereby, holding the 2017 rules as substantially ultra vires the constitution. The rules have clearly sidelined the judiciary in its own domain of work and the judiciary has correctly stopped them from the infringing the domain of any organ and continuously acting in the defiance of the Supreme Court directions.[49] If this would not have been curbed the objective of the tribunalisation in the country would have been defeated and this style of working of the executive is the reason behind the flood of writ petition in the court.[50] Whenever there will be questions raised on tribunals the judgements referred above will be taken as base to decide the law of the hour.

2020 Rules and the consequential Developments
The central government has come up with a new set of rules in the year 2020 known as the Tribunal, appellate tribunal and other authorities (qualification, experience and other condition of services of members) rules, 2020. The rules was notified in official gazette in the month of February 2020 which was brought as a substitute of the 2017 rules.[51]

Interestingly, the courts are the savior of the constitution cannot step back from their duty but the government is also acting in defiance of the Supreme Court judgement and necessary direction. The 2020 rules which were framed was again challenged by the petitioner madras bar association who has repeatedly stepped up for the protection of the tribunals. They allege that the new rules are against the law laid down by the Supreme Court for the tribunals.

The issues with the new rules are as follows:

1. The interference or the control of the concerned ministries in the tribunal is not done away with where the related ministry is the party in the litigation very often and they control the financial power, infrastructure and many control under it. Which may have an effect in the independent functioning. It is against the natural justice when the bodies are not allowed to function fairly.[52][53]
    
2. It says that the committee can function in absence of any member and that also includes the judicial independence. There can be chance that the executive are only the part of the selection committee. They can remove the judicial member by playing tricks. Thus they are trying to compromise with the judicial dominance in some or the other way.[54]
    
3. The secretary of the ministry against whom the order is passed by the tribunal are the part of the member of the selection committee for selecting the member for adjudication which was again brought as clear defiance of the judgement of the supreme court in the madras bar association case.[55]
    
4. They have provided for the retirement age for the member of tribunal as 65 years which means any retired high court judge can continue for just 3 years as against the order of the court to make it as 70 years or the service must be continuous for minimum 5 to 7 years as directed in the R. Gandhi case.[56] There is no bar on getting a government service after the post of chair-person or the member of tribunal which is a threat for judicial independence because there are chances that 'post-retirement jobs can influence pre-retirement judgement.'[57][58]
    
5. The chairpersons should be the judicial officer like the judges or the advocates, senior bureaucrats can only be there as technical members having experience but the rules provide for any one as the chair-person or vice-chairperson of the tribunal. The chief justice of India has not been given voting power.[59]

It was contended that due to all these reasons the rules are against the principles of the separation of power and the independence of the judiciary. They have also violated the previous Supreme Court judgements.

Supreme Court held that it is disappointing to note that the Centre is repeatedly overlooking the Supreme Court orders. Though the Supreme Court held that the rules are not completely unconstitutional but noted that they require major modifications. The court has discussed each of the point in the judgement and had noted important things like the rules cannot have the retrospective effect.

After the detailed discussion the court has given list of suggestions which are as follows:

1. Set up National Tribunal Commission:
   The first and important direction which the court issued was regarding the setup of the national tribunal commission which is a central level body for the administration of the affairs of the tribunal. All the issues of the tribunal should be completely independent which are vested with the same power as the high courts shall have the confidence of the public. In the case of Bidi supply Co. vs Union Of India[60] where justice Bose held that:
   The heart and core of the democracy lies in the judicial process which means independent and fearless judges free from any executive control brought up in judicial tradition and trained in judicial working and thinking.
   
   The report of the Franks committee which is accepted by the government of India says that the tribunal should have openness, fairness and impartiality.[61] The tribunal must be regarded as the machinery provided by the parliament for adjudication instead of administration.
   
   In the absence of the independence there is a threat on the efficiency of the tribunal. So, the court has directed to set up National Tribunal Commission. This will bring independence and faith on the tribunals. The tribunal must not lean on the parent departments for fulfilling their administrative demand like the infrastructure and expenses. Thus, national tribunal commission can be set up.
    
2. Change in the Search Cum selection committee:
   The objection was the presence of secretaries of the department in the committee against the previous judgements. This committee lacks judicial dominance which effects the separation of powers and it is encroachment on the judicial domain. The court has directed that the committee should have the chief justice of India or his nominee with casting vote as chairperson and the outgoing chairperson if he is judicial member and two secretary to the government that means not from the parents department.
   
   If the outgoing chairperson is not judicial member then along with chief justice one retired judge of the high court or the Supreme Court. The secretary of the parent ministry will be convener without the power to vote. Also, there should be only one name as final for the appointment and no choice in this regard can be given to executives. So far as the question of the investigation of the candidate is concerned one other candidate who is selected can be put in the waitlist if the primary does not get approval from the investigation agency then the waitlisted candidate can be appointed.[62]
    
3. Term of Office:
   The 2020 rules have provided contrary to the Supreme Court judgements which provide for minimum of 5 to 7 years of appointment in the office of the tribunal. The retired judges at the age of 62 years can get maximum 3 years of appointment as member and 4 year if appointed chairperson. If the terms are kept short then till the candidate gets the knowledge of the work, acquire efficiency the term will be over.
   
   If the secured term of considerable time is not provided then good candidates can abstain from accepting the tribunal. The reappointment clause is not certain one must can get it or he may not get it according to the will of the government that is a clear interference in the independence. In my view by the reappointment clause the government is trying to play tricks. So, the court directed for a minimum of 5 year term and the upper limit as 70 years in the case of chairpersons and 67 years in the case of members.[63]
    
4. Appointment of advocates:
   It was found that the rules were not in consonance with the parent act which does not provide for the exclusion of the advocates but the rule put a bar as candidates with less than 25 years of experience are ineligible for appointment. However the government was ready to amend it. There is no rationale behind putting restriction as the age of 50 years for the appointment. The court directed that the appointment should be made in line with the requirement for a high court judge.[64]

Apart from all these the court has directed the central government to modify the rules in various areas like for appointment of the member of Indian legal service as the judicial member of the tribunals subject to the condition fulfillment as required in the case of advocates and the requirement of the search cum selection committee, the adequate facilities for housing should be provided to the member and chairperson and if it is not accessible then the allowance should be 1,25000 and 1,50,000 respectively.

Also in case of the disciplinary action, the court impliedly mean to say that nothing can be left on discretion of the executive because that can be detrimental to the judiciary and constitutional principles would not be followed so the court also directed that the findings of the search cum selection committee with regard to the disciplinary action will be final and that will be implemented by the government. To safeguard the interest, it was directed by the court that any appointment should be notified within 3 months by the government. The court has also rejected any retrospective application of the 2020 rules and held that the rules will have the prospective effects.[65]

The court has once again played their role and tried to protect the established precedents and the necessary basic constitutional principles. The court has continuously stood as obstruction for the government's arbitrary actions. It is a high time that the government should make rules for the public welfare and not for their interest and also uphold the Supreme Court directions. If the act of public welfare is not performed then there will be increasing tension between the executive and the judiciary. No one is allowed to interfere in the domain of other.

In the light of the Supreme Court Judgment in 2020 the central government have come up with new rules in the year 2021 by promulgating ordinance on 4th April 2021. This ordinance was brought as a result of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the madras bar association case. The ordinance aims to make rules under the finance act 2017 and also amend various acts related to tribunals.

The ordinance has miserably failed to obey the court orders as a result the petitioner madras bar association who always challenge anything against the affairs of the tribunals has filed the writ petition challenging the tribunal reform ordinance 2021 as against the supreme court orders of 2020 judgement and also the basic structure. One thing which was important and unique here to note was that the bill was pending in the loksabha and it was promulgated as an ordinance by the president of India exercising its power under article 123 of the constitution of India.[66]

Ordinance Making Powers
It is quite well settled that the law making body in India is the legislature but there can be some situation when the parliament is not in session presently which is due to the pandemic. But, there may arise some situation of urgency in legislative department. As a flexible constitution, our constitution gives power to the executive under article 123 when an immediate action is required then president can promulgate an ordinance.

An ordinance is itself a law and can do legislative changes it is just the fact that on an emergency situation executive can step in the shoes of the legislature for a temporary period. They require the parliament approval for the law within 6 weeks of the first sitting of the parliament after the ordinance is promulgated.[67]

In the case of RC Cooper vs Union of India[68] the court has held that this power can be used when immediate action is required. The court has held that president power can be challenged on the ground that immediate action was not required. In the case of AK Roy vs Union of India [69] it was held that president power is subject to judicial review but only when substantial ground against it is made.

In the case of D.C. Wadhwa vs State of Bihar[70] it was held that the ordinance making power can be used in the exceptional circumstances and not to replace the legislature or arbitrarily making ordinance just to bypass the procedure of the house.

Recent Development and 2021 Petition
The petitioner challenged the 2021 rules on the following grounds while it is necessary to note that the petition is still pending with the Supreme Court and regular hearing is on where the petitioner had registered their strict opposition. The government has done legislative overruling of the Supreme Court judgement continuously by acting in violation of the order. They have always overlooked the previous courts judgement. It is high time the judiciary should come out harsh to make them follow their orders. The main problem lies with the fact that the executive want to have control over the sensitive things which can affect the judiciary as an organ and their sanctity.

The main point of opposing the tribunal ordinance 2021 are as follows:

1. The ordinance fixes an age limit for appointment in the tribunals as 50 years. This is against the Supreme Court orders in the previous case which even not agreed to 25 years of agreement and directed for the appointment in conformity with the requirements of the judges of the high court. As much as younger and emerging talent will be taken into the system the functioning of the tribunal will make them reach their objective. The younger mind comes up with new talent and new way of working and ideas which can be useful for the tribunals.[71]
    
2. The Supreme Court has emphasized for judicial dominance in the committee but still the provisions like 'appointment cannot be void on the fact that a member in the committee is not present'. This has left the door open for the secretary for voting and not exclusively exclude the rights.
    
3. The term of office is still intact to 4 years. Although the maximum age of retirement is changed according to the judgement but the ordinance provides that either 4 years or the maximum age whichever is earlier will be considered. There was several issues with short tenure which the government did not answer in the ordinance.[72]
    
4. The Supreme Court gave clear orders with regard to the appointment that there can be no discretion on the central government to appoint the bench of the tribunals and held that there will be suggestion of one name as almost final and the other as a substitute in the waiting list. The ordinance again provide for recommendation of two names to the government.[73]
    
5. There is prima facie dilution or overriding of the judgement of the court where the court directed for appointment should be made within 3 months of recommendation to which the ordinance answers with the word preferably meaning that appointment should be notified 'preferably within 3 months'.[74]
    
6. Where the court provided protection to the appointment made after November 2017 that it will continue for 5 years. The ordinance override the judgement and provided for 4 years only. It is to be seen that something has been done as detrimental to the interest of the judiciary.
    
7. The centre has not taken any steps for the establishment of the national tribunal commission which was directed in the 2020 judgement.[75]

It abolishes nine appellate tribunal and give the jurisdiction to the respective high courts. The above point of challenge does not need any further comments as the Supreme Court had already issued modified orders in the 2020 judgement. The only fact is that the central government completely overlooks the same.

The court will decide over the matter in a course of time but the attorney general in the recent hearing answered the court that the court can give many judgements but the government is not bound to implement all those. If one system does not obey the other, there will be shortage of the spirit of democracy which promotes criticism. The attorney general remark is a blow on the court which has proved to be savior of the democracy.

In the recent hearing of the matter the court was seen now questioning the petitioner continuously and considered the parliament powers and its sanctity as a body. In the recent hearing the court has held that parliament is not required to give reasons for their legislation. If the bill is passed by the parliament it is presumed that they have followed the necessary process and there can be no question regarding that. The court was seen as humble towards the acts of the executives and may put the fight at rest between the executives and the judiciary. The judgement in the case in the near future is awaited.[76]

The amendment made in the appellate body which shifts the jurisdiction to the high courts is just opposite to the objective behind setting up of tribunal. The high court will again be over burdened with the case. It was smooth for the appellate tribunals to act as supplement for the high court according to the chandrakumar judgement.

Apart from the petitioner and the court agreeing to the petitioner challenge to the rules and amendments, this time various statkeholders have also opposed the amendments like the directors and producers of the films who get speedy disposal of their issue through the film certification tribunal which might be allowing or rejecting film but now through the high court the matter will get pending and much delay will be there and some of the films are brought as the need of the time and if the clearance is given after such time has passed this will be disadvantageous to the producers and directors.

It was held by the court in the Salem bar association case[77] that the judicial impact assessment of the laws to be brought by the parliament should be done so that a law holds good after it has been enacted. In the tribunal ordinance there is no as such suggestions taken from the judiciary but they are acting in the defiance of the judiciary.

After having all such resources executives fail to observe the possible impact of the legislation, they have not taken suggestions from the stakeholders in the tribunals before amending the acts. Thus judicial impact assessment can be a valuable tool for the legislation passed in India.

Conclusion and Recommendation

1. After the due recognition of all the facts and cases, contrary to the chandrakumar judgement I suggest that the power of the judicial review of the tribunals should be with the Supreme Court. The power given to the high courts has increased burden and ambiguity because of different interpretations. It is also clear that the judicial review of the high court is not same as Supreme Court.
    
2. The executives must obey the Judgement of the Supreme Court which is a constitutional body and should not bypass its authority by the term known as the:
   'legislative over-ruling'. The court has issued direction for the administration of the tribunal from the madras bar association case (2010) to madras bar association case (2020) which must be honored by the executive to make good law. This includes all things like setup of a commission, term, appointment, selection committee, allowance etc.
    
3. The tribunals should have benches in various part of the countries to have a reach to maximum number of peoples. Apart from this specific recommendation the only general thing which can be recommended is to approve the directions of the Supreme Court to which the law commission has also concurred. Clubbing all the directions issued by the supreme court from the last decade till now should be clubbed and one ideal set of directions should be made which discusses about the term of office, appointment process and time, composition and powers of the committees, qualifications of the member, condition for the technical members, setting up a commission or the nodal agency for the tribunal, allowance, filing up vacancy, procedure for appeal. All this will ensure independence of judiciary and separation of powers.[78]

End-Notes:
[1] India Const. art. 323A amended by the constitution ( Forty Second) amendment act, 1976
[2] Walker, David M., Oxford Companion to Law, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-866110-X, 1980
At p.1239.(Last visited 10th June 2021, 12:37 am)
[3] Bharat bank Ltd. vs Employees, AIR 1950 SC 188 AND Jaswant sagar Mills Ltd. vs Lakshmi Chand, AIR 1963 SC 677, Kihoto hollohon vs Zachilhu, AIR 1993 SC 412
[4] The competition act, 2002, S.7, the gazette of India, Chapter ' III, (13th January 2003 )
[5] Tribunals, Drishti IAS (2019), https://www.drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-institutions/tribunals-1 (last visited Jun 13, 2021).
[6] Over 3.5 Crore Cases Pending Across Courts in India, Little Change in Numbers Since 2014, The Wire (2019), https://thewire.in/law/pending-court-cases (last visited Jun 13, 2021).
[7] 1979 AIR 1369, State of Maharashtra vs champalal punjaji, 1982 SCR (1) 299
[8] Justice C.K thakker and Mrs. M.c thakker, Lectures on administrative law, 246 (Abhinandan Malik, 5th Ed., 2012)
[9] Supra at 8
[10] AIR 1950 SC 222
[11] (2002) 5 SCC 685
[12] Griffith&Street, Principles of Administrative law (1973) 141
[13] Sanya Darakhshan kishwar, Tracing the development of tribunals in India : A special reference to finance act 2017, Vol.3, Journal on contemporary issues of law, Pg. 4-5, 2018 (Last visited on 10th June 2021, 1:15 am)
[14] Supra note 7
[15] 1995 SCC 14
[16] Supra note 7
[17] Supra note 15
[18] India Const. art 323A
[19] India Const. art. 323B
[20] India Const. art. 246,art.247 and schedule 7 list III
[21] AIR 1994 SC 268
[22] (2003) 2 SCC 412
[23] CI. (2) states: "Notwithstanding (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1) the Legislature of any State also, have laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Constitution referred to as the "Concurrent List'
[24] AIR 1987 SC 386
[25] Rk Jain VS Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 119
[26] 1997 (3) SCC 261
[27]Supra note 25
[28] Sheela rai, INDIA'S TRYST WITH INDEPENDENT TRIBUNALS AND REGULATORY BODIES AND ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY, Vol. 55 No.2, journal of the Indian law Institute, 215-227, June 2013 (Last visited June 13, 2021)
[29] AIR 1955 SC 549
[30] AIR 1975 SC 2299
[31] Asif Hameed vs State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1989 SCR (3) 19
[32] (2005) 2 SC 431
[33] (2010) 11 SCC 1
[34] Ibid
[35] The economic times, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/finance-bill (Last visited on 14 June 2021)
[36] Express news service, what are money bills, Indian express, (14 June, 2021), https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/what-are-money-bills/
[37] Indian Const. art. 110
[38] (2020) 6 SCC 1
[39] WP (C) 494 OF 2012
[40] India Const. art. 110, cl. (a) to (g)
[41] Shrimnath balasaheb patil vs Hon'ble speaker, Karnataka legislative assembly and others, WP(C) No. 992 of 2019
[42] Gautam Bhatia, The tribunals judgement ' I:A course correction on the money bill, Indian constitutional law and philosophy, (June 14, 2021, 1:13 am), https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/11/14/the-tribunals-judgment-i-a-course-correction-on-the-money-bill/
[43] Finance act 2017, S.184, No.7, Act of Parliament, 2017 (India)
[44] rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1
[45] (2010) 11 SCC 1
[46] Scc observer, https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/constitutional-validity-of-the-finance-act-2017, (Last visited on June 13, 2021)
[47] Rahul unnikrishnan, Decoding the tribunal judgement, Bar and Bench, ( 15 Nov 2019), https://www.barandbench.com/columns/column-decoding-the-tribunal-judgment
[48] WP(C) 496 OF 2002
[49] Hotel Balaji vs State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1993 SC 1048
[50] S.G. Chemical and Dyes Trading employees union vs S.G chemicals and Dyes Trading Ltd. (1986) 2 SCC 624
[51] Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020.( 12 Feb 2020) ( Last visited on 13th June 2021)
[52] Smt. Shankari Devi vs State of HP CWP No. 2074 of 2008
[53] Nilashish chaudary, Tribunal rules 2020 against principal of separation of powers and judicial independence :Madras bar association moves SC, Live law, (9th August 2021), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/tribunal-rules-2020-against-principles-of-separation-of-powers-judicial-independence-madras-bar-association-moves-sc-161194 (Last visited on 13th June 2021)
[54] Ibid
[55] Ibid
[56] Ibid
[57] Rajyasabha Debates, The constitution ( One hundred and twentieth amendment) Bill 2013, 229, 5th September 2013, https://youtu.be/LTzmM6iOtRc (Last visited on 13th June 2021)
[58] Supra 44
[59] Ibid
[60] (1956) SCR 267
[61] Supra note 8
[62] Madras bar association vs Union of India, WP(C) No. 804 of 2020
[63] Ibid
[64] Ibid
[65] Ibid
[66] Live law News Network, President promulgates tribunal reforms ordinance; High court made appellate body of many tribunals, Live Law, (5 April 2021), https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/centre-promulgates-tribunals-reforms-ordinance-2021-172120
[67] PRS India. 2013. Ordinance making powers of the Executive in India. [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 June 2021].
[68] AIR 1970 SC 564
[69] AIR 1982 SC 710
[70] AIR 1987 SC 579
[71] Tribunals reforms (Rationalization and condition of service) Ordinance 2021, S.12 (I), The Gazette of India, Ch.IX, (4th April 2021)
[72] Ibid
[73] Ibid
[74] Ibid
[75] Aakanksha Mishra and siddharth mandrekar rao, restructuring the tribunals system, The Hindu, (17th may 2021) https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/restructuring-the-tribunals-system/article34574959.ece
[76] Madras bar association vs Union OF India, WP (C) No. 804/2020, June 3rd 2021, SC.(Pending)
[77] Salem advocate bar association vs Union of India, WP(C) 496 OF 2002
[78] 272, DR.B.S Chauhan, Assessment of statutory framework of tribunals in India, pg.100 Ch.10, 2017