By Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Attorney General KK Venugopal while arguing in favour of the Tribunals Reforms Act of 2021 on Wednesday said that many a time the Supreme Court through its judgements had entered ‘into the policy domain’ and it should ‘keep in mind separation of powers’ among the three organs of the state.
“Many of the Supreme Court judgements have gone beyond its judicial ambit. We have said it is a policy decision yet the court went ahead with its judgement. Often the court has been laying out policy decisions and telling the legislature to pass such and such laws. There is separation of powers and it should be kept in mind,” Venugopal told a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Bela M Trivedi, according to PTI.
The Attorney General said this on the submission made by senior advocate Arvind Datar who said that despite the provisions of the law being struck down in 2021, the Union government has come out with an Act that has identical provisions to the one struck down by the apex court.
“On July 14 last year, provisions were struck down and on July 28 last year, they came out with an Act which had identical provisions. There are judgments of this court which say that a law cannot be brought in without removing the basis of the judgement,” Datar said.
The bench asked the Attorney General whether the Act would remain valid as it is similar to the ordinance whose provisions were struck down word for word.
The bench said that it would hear the arguments on the validity of the law in July.
The Supreme Court last year had termed the provisions in the new law on tribunals a ‘replica’ of those struck down earlier.
“The legislature can take away the basis of the judgement of the Supreme Court. But you cannot make an Act which is directly contradictory to the judgement of the Supreme Court,” it had said.
The bench then dealt with some applications relating to the appointments in the tribunals. The apex court has sought the Centre’s response in a plea where an applicant had sought directions for his appointment to the post of member of the Telecom Disputes and Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).
“What was the reason he was overlooked? We run an IB test before even shortlisting candidates, so the recommendations are made only when the IB test is successful. There has to be a valid reason for the rejection,” the court asked the AG.
(With agency inputs)
