New Delhi, Nov. 20 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down several provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, including the four-year tenure for tribunal members and the minimum age of 50 for appointments, holding that Parliament had effectively resurrected provisions earlier invalidated by the top court and thereby committed an impermissible act of "legislative overwrite". Delivering a strongly worded judgment, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that the 2021 Act was "mostly a reproduction" of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance that the court had struck down in July 2021. Reading out the operative findings, CJI Gavai said: "Various provisions of the impugned Act directly contravene the judgment of this Court. Instead of curing the defects or the basis of the judgment, the 2021 Act has brought the same provisions back with minor tweaking. Such an action amounts to legislative overwrite in extreme terms. It is impermissible." The bench expressed its "displeasure" at the Union government's repeated failure to implement judicial directions safeguarding the independence and effective functioning of tribunals, observing that this stance violated the Constitution. "Respect for settled law is essential for good governance as well as judicial discipline," CJI Gavai remarked, adding that the Centre's re-enactment of previously struck-down provisions showed a disregard for judicial precedents and contributed to rising pendency. The bench ruled that the principles laid down in the court's earlier rulings in the Madras Bar Association cases (MBA-4, MBA-5) will continue to govern appointments, tenure, and service conditions of tribunal members until Parliament enacts a constitutionally compliant law. In the interim, the tenure of members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) will be governed by the pre-2021 statute, while appointments made before the 2021 Act will also revert to MBA-4 and MBA-5 and not the truncated tenure introduced under the challenged law. The court granted the Centre three months to constitute the long-proposed National Tribunals Commission, envisioned as an independent body to oversee appointments, administration, and functioning of tribunals. "Piecemeal reforms cannot cure structural deficiencies," the CJI said. The bench underscored that the responsibility for reducing pendency does not lie with the judiciary alone. "The government must also exercise legislative and executive functions to assist," the court stressed, urging the Union government to frame policy with due regard to judicial precedents so that valuable judicial time is not wasted in repeated litigation on the same issues. Wednesday's verdict came nearly four years after the court began hearing a batch of petitions led by the Madras Bar Association challenging the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. On November 11, when it reserved its judgment, the bench had openly questioned the rationale behind fixing a uniform four-year tenure for members across all tribunals and raising the minimum entry age to 50. "Will it not be against the independence of the judiciary where you have a short tenure of four years with no assurance of re-appointment? How will it instill confidence in persons who apply for these posts if it requires a person to apply after every four years?" the CJI had asked during the earlier hearing. The petitioners, led by senior counsel Arvind Datar, argued that the 2021 Act was essentially a re-packaged version of the 2021 Ordinance that had been struck down in July 2021, and that the truncated tenure would deter competent younger lawyers from joining tribunals, leaving most posts to retired bureaucrats and district judges. Datar, appearing for the Madras Bar Association, said the four-year tenure had already driven away bright lawyers from the bar, and that clubbing all tribunals under a uniform tenure ignored the vast differences in their subject matter. "How can you club the Railway Claims Tribunal with the Debt Recovery Tribunal and consumer forums?" Datar had asked. He argued that no empirical study, including one by the Law Commission, supported the Centre's claim that long tenures had adversely affected tribunal performance. "Age limit, tenure, and method of selection are not mere matters of policy. These are aspects on which the judiciary will have the final say because they vitally affect the functioning of quasi-judicial bodies," Datar had earlier submitted. Defending the Act, Attorney General R Venkataramani had earlier told the court that the four-year term, coupled with the possibility of reappointment, was designed to ensure accountability. He said the Act sought to introduce uniformity and efficiency across the tribunal system and that the presence of a Chief Justice of India nominee on the search-cum-selection committees ensured transparency and fairness. "We want important reforms in the tribunalisation of the country. If Parliament cannot have a say, we must wind up the whole idea of tribunals," the AG argued, calling the 2021 law the product of "legislative wisdom" as well as prior judicial scrutiny. He submitted that the Act raised the retirement age to 70 for presiding officers and 67 for other members, and emphasised that the terms and conditions under the Act ensured independence "from any fear or favour". The court rejected these submissions, noting that Parliament could not simply revive a statutory scheme that the judiciary had already declared unconstitutional. During the hearings, the bench had also questioned the government's claim that the success rate of assesses before the ITAT had fallen after the 2021 Act. "Is that the yardstick - that the success rate improves if conviction goes up?" the court had asked....