The Supreme Court, in a thunderous judgment, dismantled the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021—calling out what it viewed as a legislative déjà vu of the most unsettling kind. According to the Court, re-enacting provisions that had already been buried by earlier rulings wasn’t just bad governance—it was a direct brush against the constitutional grain.
At the heart of the decision was a sharp reminder from the bench: preserving the form of the Constitution means nothing if its spirit is quietly hollowed out. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had warned of this long ago, and the Court declared that his warning had come alive in the recent round of tribunal-related legislation.
The judges highlighted that the 2021 Act wasn’t merely “similar” to the versions struck down in 2019, 2020, and 2021—it was their mirror image. No course-correction, no structural fix, just a rerun. And that, the Court said, amounted to governance attempting to tiptoe around binding constitutional pronouncements.
The bench did not hide its disappointment. It criticized the repeated refusal to follow earlier directions on appointments and service safeguards for tribunal members, observing that such recurrences churn the judiciary’s time into a loop of repetitive constitutional firefighting.
With courts already battling massive backlogs, the judgment delivered a pointed reminder: reducing pendency is not a solo performance by the judiciary. When legislatures revisit issues already conclusively settled—without curing their faults—they add fresh weight to an already overloaded system.
The Court underscored a foundational boundary: Parliament can amend laws, but it cannot simply breathe life back into provisions the Constitution has already rejected. Legislative power cannot be used as a backdoor to undo constitutional judgments. A valid response, the bench stressed, must fix the flaw—never repackage it.
One concurring opinion wrapped up the issue with an image sharp enough to cut through legalese: the 2021 Act was nothing more than “old wine in a new bottle.”
The ruling also carried a consequential directive—an instruction to set up a National Tribunals Commission within four months, signaling that the Court expects structural reform, not legislative reruns.
