• Advertise
  • Membership
  • Sign in
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

HomeNewsFrom the Courts
22 Oct 2021 6:30 AM GMT

Supreme Court expresses displeasure at Centre's approach

By Legal Era
Supreme-Court

Supreme Court expresses displeasure at Centre's approach

Failure to fill up vacancies in tribunals upsets a Bench of Justices

The Centre's approach towards not filling up vacancies and passing laws contrary to the apex court's judgments has irked Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh.

A bench comprising Justices Kaul and Sundresh said that it was unfortunate that the Supreme Court was being called upon to examine and fill up vacancies in tribunals. "If the government does not want the tribunals then abolish the Act!" the Bench remarked.

The top court was hearing a suo motu case regarding vacancies in District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (SCDRC).

In August, it had directed that SCDRC fill up the vacancies within a period of eight weeks.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has been frequently pulling up the government for its lackadaisical approach towards tribunals.

Contributing to the friction is the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 passed by the parliament, which laid down the tenures and other service conditions of tribunal members. Several of the provisions of the Act ran contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court judgment.

The SC ruled that the Act prescribing tenure of four years for members was contrary to the principles of separation of powers, independence of the judiciary and the rule of law of the Constitution of India.

In 2020, the Supreme Court in its judgment had ordered that the term of office of the Chairperson and tribunal members should be five years. The Court had also directed at other modifications to the rules.

In order to get over the same, the government again introduced the 2021 Ordinance, which kept the tenure at four years.

The SC in the July 2021 judgment once again struck down the move.

Legal Era

Legal Era

TAGS:
  • Supreme Court 
  • Hustice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 
  • Justice MM Sundresh 
  • Chief Justice of India 
  • State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 
  • Justice NV Ramana 
Next Story
Similar Posts
See More
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Events
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • © All rights reserved Legal Era-Legal Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X