In a comprehensive judgment examining the constitutional validity of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the Supreme Court held that several provisions of the Act were unconstitutional as they re-enacted, almost verbatim, provisions earlier struck down in Madras Bar Association (V), thereby amounting to an impermissible legislative override of binding precedent under Article 141. The Court traced the entire jurisprudential evolution beginning from S.P. Sampath Kumar, v. UOI (1987) 1SCC 124 , R.K. Jain, v.UOI  (1993) 4 SCC 119 , L. Chandra Kumar,v. UOI (1997) 3 SCC 261 ,  UOI v. R. Gandhi (MBA-I), (2010) 11 SCC 1,  NTT case, Roger Mathew, and MBA (IV), emphasising that Tribunals being substitutes for High Courts in many fields, must meet the same constitutional standards of independence and cannot be exposed to executive control in matters of appointments, tenure, remuneration, or administration. It held that norms relating to age limits, qualifications, tenure, selection process, and eligibility criteria for tribunal appointments are not mere policy matters but constitutional safeguards flowing from the structure of Articles 323-A & 323-B and the basic features of judicial independence and separation of powers. The Court found that the Act’s bar on appointment of persons below 50 years, despite its earlier rejection in MBA (V), was designed to exclude meritorious younger advocates and was, therefore, discriminatory and violative of Article 14. Similarly, the requirement that the Search-cum-Selection Committee recommend a panel of two names, rather than one name with a waiting list as directed in MBA (IV), was held unconstitutional as it reintroduced executive discretion and defeated the purpose of insulating appointments from governmental influence. The Court reaffirmed that the law declared by it under Article 141 is binding, and the legislature cannot nullify judicial directions except by curing the underlying defect, which the impugned Act failed to do. The provision fixing a four-year tenure for Chairpersons and Members. previously struck down as too short, was again invalidated as a short tenure is “anti-merit” and discourages capable applicants, undermining tribunal independence; the retrospective application of this four-year tenure was held to be a direct attempt to undo judicial decisions. The Court strongly criticised the Government for persistently disregarding its repeated directions on tribunal appointments, observing that such non-compliance has caused massive vacancies, rendering several tribunals “on the verge of closure” and leading to a complete denial of access to justice. It directed the Government to ensure timely appointments and strictly adhere to the constitutional parameters earlier laid down. At the same time, the Court upheld the retrospective enhancement of housing allowance (HRA) for tribunal members, finding it consistent with prior directions that suitable housing or enhanced HRA was essential for judicial independence. The Court reiterated that while Parliament has wide latitude to legislate on tribunals, it cannot repackage invalidated provisions without addressing their constitutional defects, nor can it encroach upon the core constitutional principles governing independent adjudication. In conclusion, the challenge was partly allowed, with the Court striking down provisions relating to the minimum age requirement, panel-based selection process, and four-year tenure, while upholding provisions that complied with earlier jurisprudence, reaffirming that the Constitution, not Parliament or the Executive, ultimately governs tribunal design.  Court directed the Union of India a period of four months from the date of this judgment to establish a National Tribunals Commission. The commission so constituted must adhere to the principles articulated by this Court, particularly concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system.  Court also clarified  and directed  that the service conditions of all such Members of ITAT who were appointed by order dated 11th September 2021 shall be governed by the old Act and the old Rules. The ITAT Bar Association Mumbai and ITAT Bar Association Mumbai , have file the application before the Court and made representation on behalf of the Bar Associations to maintain the independency of the ITAT .   ( WP No. 1018 of 2021 /626 of 2021 dt  19 -11 -2025  )