Lok Sabha passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 on Monday without debate amid Opposition protests. The Bill restructures tribunal composition, tenure, and appointment mechanisms — areas the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down under Articles 14 and 21. Earlier iterations, the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 and subsequent Acts, were invalidated in Madras Bar Association cases for compromising judicial independence and executive control over tribunal appointments.

Tribunals in India derive their legitimacy from Articles 323A and 323B, inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976), allowing Parliament to exclude jurisdiction of ordinary courts over specified disputes. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held — from S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987) through L. Chandra Kumar (1997) to the Madras Bar Association quartet (2010, 2014, 2021, 2023) — that tribunals must satisfy constitutional safeguards equivalent to the courts they replace.

The core doctrinal position: tribunals exercising judicial power must be independent of executive control. The Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021 that gave the executive power over appointments, tenure (4-year terms were struck down as too short), and search committees dominated by government nominees. The Court applied a combined Article 14 (arbitrariness in appointment) and Article 21 (access to justice via independent adjudication) test.

The 2026 Bill enters this minefield. If it replicates the executive-dominated appointment structures or short tenures the Court has repeatedly invalidated, it faces immediate constitutional challenge. For CLAT PG aspirants, the critical principle is: legislative convenience cannot override the guarantee of an independent adjudicatory forum — judicial review under Article 32/226 cannot be ousted even by a constitutional amendment (L. Chandra Kumar).