Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1

Advertisements

FACTS OF CASE

The Central Legislature’s attempt to govern and control how tribunals operate was being judicially contested in this instance. On the 4^th of April 2021, the President of India published an Ordinance based on suggestions from the Central Government. This was accomplished while acting in accordance with Indian Constitutional Article 123.

• Nine statutes could be amended as a result of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.

The intention was to establish High Courts in each of these acts to take the role of the current tribunals. The ‘judicial independence’ of such tribunals was questioned, since they were alleged to be operating under the influence of the executive by numerous Advocate Bar Associations. This was owing to poor adjudication of issues coupled with delays in the administration of justice.

ISSUE 

The main issue in the case of Madras Bar Association vs Union of India revolved around the Constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 and the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976.

Arguments 

Arguments made by the Petitioner (Madras Bar Association): The main claim made against the Act’s impugned parts was that it had improperly overturned earlier court decisions. Arvind Datar, a senior attorney, is in charge of the Madras Bar’s arguments. 

Association argued that the aforementioned Ordinance violated the Theory of Separation of Powers, a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution that protects the independence of the judiciary.

Arguments made by the Respondent (Union of India): The search results do not specifically highlight the respondent’s arguments. But it can be assumed that they would have maintained the legality of the National Tax Tribunal Act of 2005 and the 

The 1976 Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act.

The case brought up significant issues about the role and operation of tribunals in India as well as the question of whether extra-judicial bodies might take the place of High Courts, which carry out judicial tasks.

Judgment 

The Supreme Court of India rendered its decision in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India on September 25, 2014.

The National Tax Tribunal Act of 2005 and its constitutionality were maintained by the court. The 1976 Constitution (42^nd Amendment) Act.

However, it was also determined that the credentials of Technical Members of NCLT/NCLAT are invalid because they share the same flaw as the one previously upheld. High Courts, which carry out judicial duties, cannot be replaced by lower courts, the court concluded. a non-judicial organisation. It also emphasised the necessity of an adjudicatory authority’s independence and fairness. This ruling has had a profound impact on the function and role of tribunals in India.

Written by Abdul Rehman an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin