MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

The Court held that the first proviso to s.184(1) (minimum age 50) and the second proviso to s.184(1) read with the third proviso (allowances/benefits parity limiting HRA) introduced by Section 12 of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 are unconstitutional and void; Section 184(7) (panel of two names and Government decision 'preferably' within three months) is unconstitutional and void; Section 184(11)(i) and (ii) prescribing a four-year tenure are void and unconstitutional. The Court further held that the declaration in MBA-III shall prevail: Chairperson term five years or till age 70 and Member term five years or till age 67; the proviso to...

Parties
Petitioner: Madras Bar Association; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: ANR.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Disposed
Legal Topics
Separation of Powers, Independence of Judiciary, Legislative Override, Tribunal Appointments and Tenure, Retrospectivity, House Rent Allowance (hra)
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Tribunal Law Public Law Separation of Powers Independence of Judiciary Legislative Override Tribunal Appointments and Tenure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madras Bar Association

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

ANR.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Disposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of first proviso to s.184(1) of the Finance Act, 2017 (minimum age 50)
  2. 2 Validity of second proviso to s.184(1) read with third proviso (allowances / HRA parity)
  3. 3 Validity of s.184(7) (panel of two names recommended by Selection Committee and Government to decide "preferably" within three months)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the first proviso to s.184(1) (minimum age 50) and the second proviso to s.184(1) read with the third proviso (allowances/benefits parity limiting HRA) introduced by Section 12 of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 are unconstitutional and void; Section 184(7) (panel of two names and Government decision 'preferably' within three months) is unconstitutional and void; Section 184(11)(i) and (ii) prescribing a four-year tenure are void and unconstitutional. The Court further held that the declaration in MBA-III shall prevail: Chairperson term five years or till age 70 and Member term five years or till age 67; the proviso to...