Indian Polity - The Legal Chamber

Judiciary vs Parliament: Supreme Court Repeats Warning on Tribunal Independence

7Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Judiciary vs Parliament: Supreme Court Repeats Warning on Tribunal Independence

In Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court struck down the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, declaring its provisions on age limits, tenure, and appointment committees unconstitutional. The Court held the Act was an impermissible legislative override, violating the principles of separation of powers, judicial independence, and constitutional supremacy established in its prior judgements. Facts Of The Case: The Madras Bar Association challenged the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, before the Supreme Court of India. The Act sought to govern the appointment, tenure, qualifications, and service conditions of members across various tribunals. Its key provisions included a minimum age of 50 for appointment, a fixed four-year tenure, a ...

No Hiding Criminal Past: Supreme Court Says Undisclosed Conviction Makes Election Null & Void

The Supreme Court held that a candidate's non-disclosure of a subsisting criminal conviction in the mandatory election affidavit, as required under Rule 24-A of the relevant rules, constitutes a fundamental breach. This failure vitiates the nomination process itself, rendering the election void under Section 22(1)(d) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, as it violates the voters' constitutional right to informed choice under Article 19(1)(a). Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Poonam, was elected as a Councillor from Ward No. 5 of Nagar Parishad, Bhikangaon in October 2022. However, her election was challenged by the first respondent, Dulesingh, on the ground that she had failed to disclose a previous conviction in her nomination affidavit. Specifically, on August 7, 2018, Poonam ...

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Curing Defects in Petition Affidavits :Simplifying Election Laws

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that non-compliance with the affidavit requirement under Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is not automatically fatal. Following the precedent in G.M. Siddeshwar, the Supreme Court held that 'substantial compliance' with Form 25 suffices, and defects are generally curable. The matter was remanded to the High Court to determine if the affidavit in question substantially complied with the statutory requirements and whether the defects could be rectified. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the General Elections to the Odisha Legislative Assembly for the 07-Jharsuguda Constituency, held in 2024. The appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy, was declared the elected candidate, winning by a margin of 1,333 votes. The respondent, Dipa...