Case: ROJER MATHEW Vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD AND ORS

RANJAN GOGOI, CJI 1. Leave granted. BRIEF BACKGROUND: 2. In the present batch of cases, the constitutionality of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 and of the rules framed in consonance has been assailed. While it would be repetitious to reproduce the pleadings of each case separately, a brief reference is being made, illustratively, to the prayers made in three matters to aid the formulation of core issues arising for adjudication. 3. The Madras Bar Association has preferred Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2012 seeking the following reliefs: i. A writ of mandamus, directing the Union of India, to implement the directions of this Honble Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi [(2010) 11 SCC 1, para 96 at pg. 310] and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] , paras 120 and 121 at page 65 to 67], where Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. Of India was ordered to take over the administration of all tribunals created by Parliament and streamline the functioning of the same. ii. A writ of mandamus directing the Ministry of Law & Justice to promptly carry out a Judicial Impact Assessment on all tribunals created by Parliament and submit a report on the same to this Honble Court. 4. This Writ Petition was originally heard by a three-judge Bench on 18 th February, 2015 wherein it was observed that the case presented substantial questions of Constitutional interpretation, necessitating hearing by a Constitution Bench. The orders passed from time to time reveal that, on 18 th January, 2016, this Court perused the contents of the Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and other Authorities (Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014 and felt that it would be more appropriate if observations made in Union of India vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1 ( in paragraphs 64-70) are also considered by the Government. 5. The matter was listed again on 27 th March, 2019 and this Court took cognizance of non-implementation of the directions issued vide para 96 of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. , which reads as follows: 96. We are of the opinion that, until a wholly independent agency for the administration of all such Tribunals can be set up, it is desirable that all such tribunals should be, as far as possible, under a single nodal ministry which will be in a position to oversee the working of these tribunals. For a number of reasons that Ministry should appropriately be the Ministry of Law. It would be open for the Ministry, in its turn, to appoint an independent supervisory body to oversee the working of the Tribunals. 6. Thereafter on the same day, this Court opined as follows: Tentatively, we are of the view that the said directions ought to have been implemented by the Government of India long back. In the course of hearing today, learned Attorney General for India relying on an affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India in the year 2013, had pointed out certain difficulties including the need for an amendment of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. Learned Attorney General has also pointed out that the Ministry of Law and Justice is overburdened and may not be able to act and function as the nodal agency, which the Court had in mind while issuing directions way back in the year 1997 in L. Chandra Kumar (supra). There cannot by any manner of doubt that to ensure the efficient functioning and to streamline the working of Tribunals, they should be brought under one agency, as already felt and observed by this Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra). The Court would like to have benefit of the view of the Government of India as on today by means of an affidavit of the competent authority to be filed within two weeks from today. The second prayer made in the writ petition has also been considered by us and in this regard we have taken note of compilation placed before the Court by the learned Attorney General, which would go to show the present vacancy position in different Tribunals, which is one of the issues that we would attempt to resolve. From the compilation of the learned Attorney General, it appears that the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the Armed Forces Tribunal, the National Green Tribunal and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal would require immediate attention. While every endeavour would be made by the nominee of the Chief Justice who heads the Selection Committee before whom the issue of recommendations may have been pending to expedite the same, such of the recommendations which have already been made by the Search-cum-Selection Committee as is in the case of National Company Law Tribunal and National Law Appellate Tribunal, should be immediately implemented by making appointments within the aforesaid period of two weeks and the result thereof be placed before the Court vide affidavit of the competent authority, as ordered to be filed by the present order. Once the aforesaid information is made available, appropriate orders will be passed by this Court, which may, inter alia, include remitting the matter to smaller Bench for monitoring on a continuous basis, so as to ensure due and proper functioning of the Tribunals. Matter be listed before this Bench after two weeks. 7. During the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition, the present lead matter bearing SLP(C) No. 15804/2017 was filed by Rojer Mathew, assailing the final judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had originally approached the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 (5- A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 which permits secured creditors to participate in auction of immoveable property if it remained unsold for want of reserve bid in an earlier auction. Rojer Mathew claimed that the aforementioned provision violated his rights under Article 300A and Article 14 of the Constitution, besides being in contravention of the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits mortgagees from participating in auction of immovable property without prior Court permission. 8. During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that appointments to the Debt Recovery Tribunals was not in consonance with the Constitutional spirit of judicial independence. Accordingly, though Rojer Mathew was given an opportunity to approach the High Court for reconsideration of his plea on 16 th May, 2018, nevertheless this Court kept his petition pending to allow consideration of broader issues concerning restructuring of Tribunals. Assistance of Shri Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Advocate as Amicus Curiae was also requested by this Court. 9. The third matter to be taken note of is Writ Petition (Civil) No. 279/2017 where the petitioner, Kudrat Sandhu, has filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the vires of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 by which the provisions of twenty-five different enactments were amended to effect sweeping changes to the requisite qualifications, method of appointment, terms of office, salaries and allowances, and various other terms and conditions of service of the members and presiding officers of different statutory Tribunals. The impugned provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 have been referred to in extenso at appropriate parts of this order. GENESIS OF TRIBUNALISATION: 10. Delay and backlogs in the administration of justice is of paramount concern for any country governed by the rule of law. In our present judicial setup, disputes often take many decades to attain finality, travelling across a series of lower courts to the High Court and ending with an inevitable approach to the Supreme Court. 11. Such crawling pace of the justice delivery system only aggravates the misery of affected parties. Although with nebulous origins, the adage justice delayed, is justice denied is apt in this context. Courts in this country, probably in a quest to ensure complete justice for everyone, overlook the importance of expediency and finality. This situation has only worsened over the years, as evidenced through piling pendency across all Courts. It would however be wrong to place the blame of such delay squarely on the judiciary, for an empirical examination of pendency clearly demonstrates that the ratio of judges against the countrys population is one of the lowest in the world and the manpower (support staff) and infrastructure provided is dismal. 12. In addition to the delay in administration of justice, another important facet requiring attention is the rise of specialization and increase of complex regulatory and commercial aspects, which require esoteric appraisal and adjudication. The existing lower courts in the country are not well equipped to deal with such complex new issues which see constant evolution as compared to the stable nature of existing civil, criminal and the tax jurisprudence. 13. Evidently, there is a desperate need to overcome these hurdles of delay in administration of justice. Creation of tribunals has evolved as one solution in the ever-constant strive to increase access to justice. A Tribunal can be understood as a body tasked with discharging quasi-judicial functions with the primary objective of providing a special forum for specific type of disputes and for faster and more efficacious adjudication of issues. In Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut vs. Lakshmichand AIR 1963 SC 677 . , a test was laid down whereunder it is to be examined whether the authority has the trappings of a Court, facets of which include the authority to make determinations, evidentiary and procedural powers and ability to impose sanctions. However, per a five-judge bench in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. PN Sharma AIR 1965 SC 1595 , Tribunals were vested with a primarily judicial character for it was observed that: 9. ….. Special matters and questions are entrusted to them for their decision and in that sense, they share with the courts one common characteristic; both the courts and the tribunals are constituted by the State and are invested with judicial as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions , (vide Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh [(1955) 1 SCR 267 at p. 272] ). They are both adjudicating bodies and they deal with and finally determine disputes between parties which are entrusted to their jurisdiction. The procedure followed by the courts is regularly prescribed and in discharging their functions and exercising their powers, the courts have to conform to that procedure. The procedure which the tribunals have to follow may not always be so strictly prescribed, but the approach adopted by both the courts and the tribunals is substantially the same, and there is no essential difference between the functions that they discharge. As in the case of courts, so in the case of tribunals, it is the States inherent judicial power which has been transferred and by virtue of the said power, it is the States inherent judicial function which they discharge. Judicial functions and judicial powers are one of the essential attributes of a sovereign State, and on considerations of policy, the State transfers its judicial functions and powers mainly to the courts established by the Constitution; but that does not affect the competence of the State, by appropriate measures, to transfer a part of its judicial powers and functions to tribunals by entrusting to them the task of adjudicating upon special matters and disputes between parties. It is really not possible or even expedient to attempt to describe exhaustively the features which are common to the tribunals and the courts, and features which are distinct and separate. The basic and the fundamental feature which is common to both the courts and the tribunals is that they discharge judicial functions and exercise judicial powers which inherently vest in a sovereign State. 14. Further, this Court has in various judgments explicitly held that tribunals are mutually exclusive from administrative or legislative bodies, and although not strictly Courts, they nevertheless perform judicial functions. With the inclusion of technical members along with judicial members in composition of Tribunals, it is ensured that the adjudicatory authority is equipped with the technical knowledge required to comprehend and decide issues involving specialised subjects. 15. Such issues are not unique to our country. Globally, the issues such as need for specialization or pendency have resulted in a unanimous consensus for tribunalisation. A perusal of the prevailing legal regime governing tribunals and their interface with the government, provides a useful benchmark in examining methods to retain their character. AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 16. The global approach to the institution of specialized Tribunals is a largely consistent one. A cursory examination brings to fore a universal inherent need to disperse disputes across different adjudicatory bodies to reduce the burden on Constitutional Courts and ensure faster resolution of specific disputes. Almost all countries in the world have incorporated laws pertaining to the working of Tribunals within their Constitutional framework in some form or the other. In light of our common law traditions and colonial history, it would be imperative to examine the position of law across the world: I. United Kingdom 17. Tribunals are one of the most important institutions in the dispensation of justice in the British Judicial system. Numerous Tribunals have been established to deal with issues involving property rights, employment, immigration, mental health, etc. Their functions are similar to the mainstream judicial bodies and are concerned with disputes between individuals and the State. However, there is a stark distinction between Tribunals and Ordinary Courts in England; for unlike ordinary Courts, the Tribunals comprise of members with special expertise and experience with many of them being appointed from amongst advocates or from persons with technical exposure. 18. Such tribunalisation traces its origins to the early twentieth century. The efficacy of a specialised, quasi-judicial body for adjudication of specific disputes was realised over a period of time as the newly evolved system of Tribunals gradually gained appreciation and recognition in the legal fraternity. During the development of the railways in the early 19 th century, the judges found themselves ill-equipped to deal with technically specialised trade disputes arising from monopolistic railway companies. Such inexpert adjudication also resulted in dissatisfaction of the litigants. Consequently, a specialized tribunal of Commissioners was appointed in 1873 and later converted to the Railways and Canals Commission. Later in the nineteenth century, the British Government set up tribunals for pension and unemployment benefit to enhance accessibility to the poor and less-educated, including, special tribunals set up to adjudicate disablement pensions for servicemen wounded in World War I. In the twentieth century, post the Leggatt review, many dozens of tribunals for subjects as diverse as tax, mental health, social security, employment and asylum were set up, with thousands of adjudicating members. 19. As Tribunals started marking their individual identity and resolving conflicts brought before them, there was an emergent need to amend the framework of these alternate fora in tune with societal changes. The Donoughmore Committee, in 1932, critiqued the delegation of judicial functions to quasi-judicial body and recommended that the judicial powers should vest solely with the Ordinary Courts of law. It was further recommended that establishment of Tribunals should only be in special cases where Ordinary Courts lacks expertise. Applicability of principles of natural justice must also be extended to such Tribunals. Courts should be adequately empowered to ensure that the Tribunals function within their restricted domain. 20. The need for supervisory jurisdiction over Tribunals was again discussed in 1957 when the Franks Committee made its recommendations which were implemented by the Tribunal and Inquiries Act, 1958. The Franks Committee Report presented a glowing critique in favour of tribunalisation, contending that it was cheaper, faster, better and more accessible. This finding has been echoed by various international commissions which have noted the beneficial impacts of tribunalisation viz., cost effectiveness, accessibility, reduction in pendency, specialized expertise, etc. Tribunals are not ordinary courts, but neither are they appendages of Government Departments. Much of the official evidence … appeared to reflect the view that tribunals should properly be regarded as part of the machinery of administration, for which the Government must retain a close and continuing responsibility. Thus, for example, tribunals in the social services field would be regarded as adjuncts to the administration of the services themselves. We do not accept this view. We consider that tribunals should properly be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration. The essential point is that in all these cases Parliament has deliberately provided for a decision outside and independent of the Department concerned, either at first instance … or on appeal from a decision of a Minister or of an official in a special statutory position… Although the relevant statutes do not in all cases expressly enact that tribunals are to consist entirely of persons outside the Government service, the use of the term tribunal in legislation undoubtedly bears this connotation, and the intention of Parliament to provide for the independence of tribunals is clear and unmistakable.Drewry, Gavin, The Judicialisation of Administrative Tribunals in the U.K: From Hewart to Leggatt 28 TRAS 51 (2009) 21. Pursuant to this, the Council on Tribunals was established with the purpose of overseeing composition and working of various Tribunals. Further, the Sir Andrew Leggatt Committee (2001) scrutinised the existing state of Tribunals wherein the inherent deficiencies of a non-uniform Tribunal system were highlighted. The report of the Committee, titled T r ibun als for User — One System, One S er vice suggested a new structurally reformed system of Tribunals with a more uniform administration and procedure. It was also suggested that a single Appellate Division should be the only route of appeal against the orders of the Tribunals. In 2007, the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act was enacted which formulated a new system of two Tribunals -the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal - with unified route for appeal. Excerpts from the Explanatory Notes to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, 2007 prepared by the Ministry of Justice, British Parliament. 22. In the year 2006 the United Kingdom created a Tribunal Service, which was later merged with the Courts Service in 2010, resulting in the creation of a single cohesive judicial structure and service for the country. II. Canada 23. The Tribunal system in Canada, although of recent origin, is well established having a distinct identity of its own. Similar to the system in England, in Canada too, the Tribunal system has successfully become one of the foundations of the judicial system. Malik, Lokendra; Lata, Kusum; Kaur, Avneet, Constitutional Government in India (Satyam Law International, New Delhi, 2016) at p. 191. Federal or provincial legislations are enacted to constitute and empower specialised Tribunals for specific subject matters such as human rights, insurance claims, etc. Administrative Tribunals in Canada, available at: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/administrative-tribunals/ (last visited on 10.09.2019). The work of the Tribunals are regulated by legislation and Members are usually appointed for their expertise in the subject. 24. Many of the Tribunals are empowered by their enabling legislation or general legislations to have powers similar to Civil Courts. However, Tribunals in Canada are less formal than Courts and are outside the general Court system; their decisions are subject to Judicial Review to ensure adherence to law. In a striking resemblance to our judicial system, the Canadian Constitution also provides inherent power of judicial review of decisions of Tribunals to superior Courts, where either no provision of appeal is provided or is specifically barred by a statute. Appeals from orders of Tribunals in Canada are heard by Federal Court of Canada, the immediate forum below the Supreme Court of Canada. III. Australia 25. The Australian system of Tribunals is an amalgamation of the system prevalent in England and Canada. Tribunals in Australia were established primarily to reduce the burden on Civil Courts and provide an effective, yet cheap means of justice for the public. There prevails a variety of Tribunals to review different types of Government decisions including social security, taxation, etc. The Tribunals serve a multifarious purpose, deciding issues between individuals and individuals & State. For instance, in several Australian States, the Tribunals work as Small Claims Courts. The Court of Appeals is a facet of the Supreme Court, enjoying appellate powers over all the other Courts and Tribunals in the country. IV. United States of America 26. The doctrine of separation of powers is adhered to in a much stringent manner in comparison to other common law countries. There is no delegation of judicial powers and no judicial power is vested in administrative bodies which are not Courts. The inception of judicial control over administrative action was with the enactment of Administrative Procedure Act, 1946. However, the Act merely made the decisions of Tribunals appealable on question of interpretation of law. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of the United States had taken a more liberal view of the same leaving scope, though extremely limited, for judicial review. V. France 27. Being a Civil Law system, France has a dual legal system comprising of— Private Law (droit privé) and Administrative Law (droit administratif). George A. Bermann; Etienne Picard, Introduction to French Law (Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 2008) at p. 58. It has a special Tribunal viz. Tribunal des Conflicts for performing both judicial and administrative functions. Bartlett, C. A. Hereshoff, The French Judicial System 33 CLT 952 (1913). The decisions of Tribunal des Conflicts are not entirely within the purview of judicial review. Judicial Review is expressly ousted from some of the administrative actions. Further, to adjudicate disputes between individual and officials of State, the Counseil dEtat was formed. 28. With change in time, the Tribunal system of France also evolved. A new Three-Tier Tribunal system was established. The first tier being Tribunal administratif — Administrative Court or the Original Court having a wide jurisdiction covering all subject matters; the second tier is Cour administrative dappel — Administrative Court of Appeal, formed to decide appeals from the Original Court and; the third tier is Conseil dEtat — Court of Last Resort, which was formed to finally decide appeals from the Original Court or Court of Appeal. However, unlike in common law countries, the Appellate Courts in France lack power of judicial review on the ground of authority being ultra vires. VI. South Africa 29. South Africa having similar colonial origins as India, inherited a similar legal system as India. Having multiple functions and discharging a range of judicial,quasi-judicial as well as administrative powers, every tribunal is a unique creation of its parent statute. Akin to many critiques in India, such tribunals are often criticized for their lack of uniformity, incoherence and haphazardness. DOMESTIC PERCEPTION: 30. It is interesting to note that establishment of Tribunals in India relate back to as early as the year 1941 when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was established to expedite tax disputes. To structuralise the establishment of Tribunals, vide the 42 nd Constitutional Amendment, Article 323A and 323B were introduced, delineating powers as well as the composition and formation of Tribunals. Numerous Tribunals thereafter have been established, with the source of power to legislate for establishing such tribunals being referable to Article 323A or Article 323B of the Constitution. The three-tier tribunal system in India finds its resemblance to the system as prevalent in France. The forums of first instance have Original Jurisdiction with High Court as the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court being the final adjudicatory body. Furthermore, it is not out of context to point out the similarity of the Constitution of India with the Canadian Constitution, insofar as it also provides inherent power of judicial review to Constitutional Courts over all subordinate Courts. 31. Hence, the need for establishment of newer and more specialised adjudicatory bodies is not newfound but has evolved through developments spread over an era. I. Administrative Reforms Commission - 1966 32. The Administrative Reforms Commission was set up to explore the arenas for establishing Administrative Tribunals for different subject matters. It recommended establishment of Civil Services Tribunals as adjudicatory entities for disciplinary punishments awarded to civil servants. II. Wanchoo Committee - 1970 33. The Wanchoo Committee recommended reforms to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to effectuate replacement of Civil Courts for expeditious redressal of tax disputes. It also recommended formation of a Direct Taxes Settlement Tribunal to ensure speedy remedies and decisions of disputes. III. High Courts Arrears Committee Report - 1972 34. A committee headed by Justice JC Shah highlighted an urgent need for individual-specialised Tribunals for exclusively dealing with service matters and to unburden High Courts by restricting the barrage of writ petitions being filed by government employees. IV. Swaran Singh Committee - 1976 35. The Swaran Singh Committee took a radical view by advocating amendments to the Constitution for regulation of Tribunals and to curtail the writ jurisdiction of High Court and the Supreme Court. This report attracted a lot of critique from the legal fraternity and was later rejected in Sakinala Hari Nath vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh 1993 (3) ALT 471 ; See also: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 1997 (2) SCR 1186 V. Raghavan Committee - 2002 36. In accordance with contemporaneous evolutions in the commercial sphere, the Raghavan Committee was set up to suggest methods to regulate anti- competitive practices. This Committee recommended establishment of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which was envisioned to maintain adequate competition in the market and protect consumer welfare. Further, the Competition Act, 2002 was later enacted which provided certain powers of Civil Courts to the CCI for effective enquiry and adjudication. 37. Tribunals can thus be viewed as alternate avenues to facilitate swift dispensation of justice through less-formal procedures of adjudication. An examination of existing Tribunals in India and across foreign jurisdictions, shows that they are best suited to deal with complex subject-matters requiring technical expertise such as service law, tax law, company law or environment law, etc. LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF TRIBUNALISATION : 38. In India, the Constitution (42 nd Amendment) Act, 1976 paved way for tribunalisation of the justice dispensation system by introduction of Articles 323A and 323B in the Constitution. These provisions are to the following effect: PART XIV-A: TRIBUNALS 323-A. Administrative tribunals.—(1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government. (2) A law made under clause (1) may— (a) provide for the establishment of an administrative tribunal for the Union and a separate administrative tribunal for each State or for two or more States; (b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said tribunals; (c) provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals; ( d) exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in clause (1); (e) provide for the transfer to each such administrative tribunal of any cases pending before any court or other authority immediately before the establishment of such tribunal as would have been within the jurisdiction of such tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment; (f) repeal or amend any order made by the President under clause (3) of Article 371- D; (g) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees) as Parliament may deem necessary for the effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by, and the enforcement of the orders of, such tribunals. (3) The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force. 323-B. Tribunals for other matters.— (1) The appropriate Legislature may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by tribunals of any disputes, complaints, or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2) with respect to which such Legislature has power to make laws. (2) The matters referred to in clause (1) are the following, namely:— (a) levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax; (b) foreign exchange, import and export across customs frontiers; (c) industrial and labour disputes; (d) land reforms by way of acquisition by the State of any estate as defined in Article 31-A or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights or by way of ceiling on agricultural land or in any other way; (e) ceiling on urban property; (f) elections to either House of Parliament or the House or either House of the Legislature of a State, but excluding the matters referred to in Article 329 and Article 329-A; (g) production, procurement, supply and distribution of foodstuffs (including edible oilseeds and oils) and such other goods as the President may, by public notification, declare to be essential goods for the purpose of this article and control of prices of such goods; (h) rent, its regulation and control and tenancy issues including the right, title and interest of landlords and tenants; (i) offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (h) and fees in respect of any of those matters; (j) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (i). (3) A law made under clause (1) may— (a) provide for the establishment of a hierarchy of tribunals; (b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said tribunals; (c) provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals; (d) exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 with respect to all or any of the matters falling within the jurisdiction of the said tribunals; (e) provide for the transfer to each such tribunal of any cases pending before any court or any other authority immediately before the establishment of such tribunal as would have been within the jurisdiction of such tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment; (f) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees) as the appropriate Legislature may deem necessary for the effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by, and the enforcement of the orders of, such tribunals. (4) The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force. Explanation.—In this article, appropriate Legislature, in relation to any matter, means Parliament or, as the case may be, a State Legislature competent to make laws with respect to such matter in accordance with the provisions of Part XI. 39. Drawing its competence from Article 323A of the Constitution, the Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The primary objective was to provide a forum alternative to the High Courts for routine service appeals, which otherwise was overburdening the working of the Constitutional Courts. It recognised that the higher Courts were envisaged to primarily deal with important Constitutional issues and substantial question of law of general public importance. 40. Furthermore, guidelines were issued by this Court in numerous decisions to highlight a paucity of technical expertise in certain subject-matters and thus the imminent need for an expedited disposal of such cases through Tribunals. It was indicated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1986 (2) SCC 176 , that a dedicated Tribunal with both judicial and technical experts is necessary to hear environmental disputes. 41. Consequently, the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 and National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 were enacted. However, these were soon found to be incapable of providing expeditious resolution of disputes which necessitated reforms as suggested by the Law Commission of India. This led to the establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010 as a special fast- track Court only to deal with issues related to the environment. 42. Similarly, Article 323B empowers the appropriate Legislature to enact legislation to provide for adjudication or trial by Tribunals of any disputes, complaints or offences with respect to the matters specified in Clause (2) of the said Article. The matters specified in Article 323B(2) exhaustively deal with a variety of matters which can be brought within the purview of tribunalisation by both the Parliament and State Legislatures. JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT OF TRIBUNALISATION : 43. This Court has observed through numerous decisions that the term Tribunal refers to a quasi-judicial authority. A test to determine whether a particular body was merely an administrative organ of the Executive or a Tribunal was evolved by this Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut vs. Lakshmichand AIR 1963 SC 677 . It was to be examined whether the body is vested with powers of a Civil Court or not, and it was held that any adjudicatory body vested with powers of taking evidence, summoning of witnesses, etc. must be categorised as a Tribunal. 44. In R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119 . a three-judge Bench of this Court emphasised the need for a safe and sound justice delivery system adept at satisfying the confidence of litigants. It was further noted that since members of Tribunals discharge quasi-judicial functions, it is imperative that they possess requisite legal expertise, some judicial experience and an iota of legal training. Moreover, since Tribunals are constituted as substitutes to Courts, their efficacy in upholding the faith of litigants cannot be compromised. It was however observed that true delivery of justice by Tribunals was still a far-fetched idea since the mechanism for judicial review and remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court was costly and discouraging. People from remote areas often found their right to appeal being handicapped by geographical and financial constraints. Hence, it was suggested by this Court that newer fora be dispersed across the country and that members from the Bar also be included in the composition of such Tribunals. An urgent need to reform the working of tribunals and regular monitoring of their functioning was also stressed upon. 45. Subsequently, in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 , a Constitution Bench of seven judges of this Court examined reports of expert committees and commissions analysing the problem of arrears. The Malimath Committee Report (1989-1990) was also referred to, wherein it was found that many Tribunals failed the test of public confidence due to purported lack of competence, objectivity and judicial approach. This Court thus called for drastic measures to elevate the standards of Tribunals in the country. 46. It was also reiterated that the exclusion of judicial review by High Courts was impermissible and providing direct statutory appeals to the Supreme Court impeded the common litigant from exercising his right to appeal because the appellate forum, being situated in Delhi, was inaccessible to many. While criticising the short terms of members and the lack of judicial experience of non-judicial members, this Court observed a need for establishment of an oversight mechanism to review the competence of all persons manning Tribunals. Thus, it was suggested that all Tribunals be brought under a Single Nodal Ministry, most appropriately the Ministry of Law & Justice, for overseeing of working of Tribunals. Liberty was however, granted to the Ministry to appoint an independent supervisory body to delegate the aforesaid functions. Further, the court noted that the procedure of selection of members of Tribunals, allocation of funds and all other intricacies would have to be culled out by such an umbrella organisation. 47. In Union of India vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1 , a Constitution Bench of five judges of this Court reviewed the Constitutional validity of Parts I-B and I-C of The Companies Act, 1956 inserted by the Companies (2 nd Amendment) Act, 2002. 48. The bench observed that if Tribunals are established in substitution of Courts, they must also possess independence, security and capacity. Additionally, with transfer of jurisdiction from a traditional Court to a Tribunal, it would beimperative to include members of the judiciary as presiding officers/members of the Tribunal. Technical members could only be in addition to judicial members and that also only when specialised knowledge or know-how is required. Any inclusion of technical members in the absence of any discernible requirement of specialisation would amount to dilution and encroachment upon the independence of the judiciary. 49. This Court also observed that higher administrative experience does not necessarily result in better adjudication and that there had been a gradual encroachment on the independence of the judiciary through inclusion of more administrative/technical members in the Tribunals. It held that such practice needed to be checked and accordingly made requisite corrections to Parts I-B and I-C of The Companies Act, 1956 (as amended in 2002) as elucidated in para 120 of the judgement, which is reproduced below: 120. We may tabulate the corrections required to set right the defects in Parts I-B and I-C of the Act: (i) Only Judges and advocates can be considered for appointment as judicial members of the Tribunal. Only High Court Judges, or Judges who have served in the rank of a District Judge for at least five years or a person who has practised as a lawyer for ten years can be considered for appointment as a judicial member. Persons who have held a Group A or equivalent post under the Central or State Government with experience in the Indian Company Law Service (Legal Branch) and the Indian Legal Service (Grade I) cannot be considered for appointment as judicial members as provided in sub-sections (2)(c) and (d) of Section 10-FD. The expertise in Company Law Service or the Indian Legal Service will at best enable them to be considered for appointment as technical members. (ii) As NCLT takes over the functions of the High Court, the members should as nearly as possible have the same position and status as High Court Judges. This can be achieved, not by giving the salary and perks of a High Court Judge to the members, but by ensuring that persons who are as nearly equal in rank, experience or competence to High Court Judges are appointed as members. Therefore, only officers who are holding the ranks of Secretaries or Additional Secretaries alone can be considered for appointment as technical members of the National Company Law Tribunal. Clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (2) and clauses (a) and (b) of sub- section (3) of Section 10-FD which provide for persons with 15 years experience in Group A post or persons holding the post of Joint Secretary or equivalent post in the Central or the State Government, being qualified for appointment as Members of Tribunal, are invalid (iii) A techn ical member presupposes an experience in the field to which the Tribunal relates. A member of the Indian Company Law Service who has worked with Accounts Branch or officers in other departments who might have incidentally dealt with some aspect of company law cannot be considered as experts qualified to be appointed as technical members. Therefore clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) are not valid. (iv) The first part of clause (f) of sub-section (3) providing that any person having special knowledge or professional experience of 20 years in science, technology, economics, banking, industry could be considered to be persons with expertise in company law, for being appointed as technical members in the Company Law Tribunal, is invalid. (v) Persons having ability, integrity, standing and special knowledge and professional experience of not less than fifteen years in industrial finance, industrial management, industrial reconstruction, investment and accountancy, may however be considered as persons having expertise in rehabilitation/revival of companies and therefore, eligible for being considered for appointment as technical members. (vi) In regard to category of persons referred in clause (g) of sub-section (3) at least five years experience should be specified. (vii) Only clauses (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and the latter part of clause (f) in sub-section (3) of Section 10-FD and officers of civil services of the rank of the Secretary or Additional Secretary in the Indian Company Law Service and the Indian Legal Service can be considered for purposes of appointment as technical members of the Tribunal. (viii) Instead of a five-member Selection Committee with the Chief Justice of India (or his nominee) as Chairperson and two Secretaries from the Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs and the Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and the Secretary in the Ministry of Law and Justice as members mentioned in Section 10-FX, the Selection Committee should broadly be on the following lines: a. Chief Justice of India or his nominee—Chairperson (with a casting vote); b. A Senior Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of High Court—Member; c. Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs—Member; and d. Secretary in the Ministry of Law and Justice—Member. (ix) The term of office of three years shall be changed to a term of seven or five years subject to eligibility for appointment for one more term. This is because considerable time is required to achieve expertise in the field concerned. A term of three years is very short and by the time the members achieve the required knowledge, expertise and efficiency, one term will be over. Further the said term of three years with the retirement age of 65 years is perceived as having been tailor- made for persons who have retired or shortly to retire and encourages these Tribunals to be treated as post-retirement havens. If these Tribunals are to function effectively and efficiently they should be able to attract younger members who will have a reasonable period of service. (x) The second proviso to Section 10-FE enabling the President and members to retain lien with their parent cadre/ministry/department while holding office as President or Members will not be conducive for the independence of members. Any person appointed as member should be prepared to totally disassociate himself from the executive. The lien cannot therefore exceed a period of one year. (xi) To maintain independence and security in service, sub-section (3) of Section 10-FJ and Section 10-FV should provide that suspension of the President/Chairman or member of a Tribunal can be only with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India. (xii) The administrative support for all Tribunals should be from the Ministry of Law and Justice. Neither the Tribunals nor their members shall seek or be provided with facilities from the respective sponsoring or parent Ministries or Department concerned. (xiii) Two-member Benches of the Tribunal should always have a judicial member. Whenever any larger or special Benches are constituted, the number of technical members shall not exceed the judicial members. 50. Later, in Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India(2014) 10 SCC 1 , whilst striking down the newly-created National Tax Tribunal under the National Tax Tribunals Act, 2005, it was observed that procedure of appointment and conditions of service of members must be akin to judges of the Courts which were sought to be substituted by the Tribunal(s). 51. Only persons with professional legal qualifications coupled with substantial experience in law were held to be competent to handle complex legal issues. It was further held that a litigating party (Govt.) should never be a participant in the appointment process of members of the Tribunal. Similarly, a provision for reappointment or extension of tenure is ipso facto prejudicial to the independence of the members of Tribunal. A difference was also drawn between appointments to Tribunals which substituted Courts of first instance and to those which were not subordinate to High Courts. 52. It was further reiterated that establishment of a Tribunal with its seat at Delhi could cause hardship to litigants from other parts of the country, depriving them of. convenient access to justice. Moreover, the Court held that in order to uphold their independence and fairness it would be inappropriate for the Central Government to have any administrative control over members of the Tribunal. 53. In Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (2015) 8 SCC 583. , vires of the Companies Act, 2013 which contemplated establishment of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) were challenged. Interestingly, while examining Chapter XXVII of Companies Act, 2013 i.e. Sections 407 to 434, this Court held that although the establishment of NCLT and NCLAT was not unconstitutional but there was a need for curing defects in accordance with the dictum of R. Gandhi (supra). 54. Finally, in Gujarat Urja Vikas Ltd. vs. Essar Power Ltd. (2016) 9 SCC 103 , while examining the composition and working of Tribunals and statutory framework thereof, this Court reiterated its earlier decisions in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Madras Bar Association (2014) (supra), observing that remedy of appeal to this Court was in effect, being obliterated due to cost and inaccessibility. In addition to this, a flood of appeals from all the Tribunals directly to this Court hindered its efficiency in fulfilling its primary Constitutional role. Since appellate tribunals, manned by non- judicial members, were adjudging complex questions of law, the composition of Tribunals was put under review by this Court and a reference to the Law Commission of India was made in this regard. Pursuant to this, the Law Commission of India, in its 272 nd Report titled Assessment of Statutory Frameworks of Tribunals in India gave a detailed analysis of statutory framework with respect to Tribunalisation in India. THE FINANCE ACT, 2017: ITS LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND 55. Primary challenge in the present batch of cases is to the Finance Act, 2017. Though this enactment was purportedly to give effect to the finance proposals of the central government for the financial year 2017-18 but Part XIV thereof consists of comprehensive provisions meant to effect Amendments to Central Acts to Provide for Merger of Tribunals and other Authorities and Conditions of Service of Chairpersons, Members, etc. 56. A scrutiny of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 discloses how by virtue of Sections 158 to 182, Parliament has amended twenty-five central enactments which form the foundation for multiple Tribunals. It has been submitted by the learned Attorney General, these amendments seek to rationalise the functioning of Tribunals, in conformity with the principles laid down by this Court in its prior decisions. 57. Sections 158 to 182 of Part-XIV are broadly in pari materia except that each Section deals with a separate Tribunal. In order to comprehend the manner in which Parliament has sought to achieve a uniform pattern of qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and other terms and conditions of service of members and presiding officers of various Tribunals, it would be sufficient to illustratively reproduce Sections 158 and 173 of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017. Section 173 reads as follows: I.—AMENDMENT TO THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952 173. In the Cinematograph Act, 1952, after section 5D, the following section shall be inserted, namely:— 5E. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairman and other members of the Appellate Tribunal appointed after the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, shall be governed by the provisions of section 184 of that Act: Provided that the Chairman and member appointed before the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder as if the provisions of section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 had not come into force.. 58. In addition to this, some Sections in Part XIV also amalgamate existing Tribunals. Section 158 has been reproduced below as an example of such Sections which in addition to the elements of Section 173 also effect amalgamations: 158. Amendment of Act 14 of 1947.— In the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,— (a) in Section 7A, after sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:— (1A) The Industrial Tribunal constituted by the Central Government under sub- section (1) shall also exercise, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the Tribunal referred to in Section 7D of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952).; (b) after Section 7C, the following section shall be inserted, namely:— 7D. Qualifications, terms and conditions of service of Presiding Officer.— Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation and removal and other terms and conditions of service of the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal appointed by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 7A, shall, after the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, be governed by the provisions of Section 184 of that Act: Provided that the Presiding Officer appointed before the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder as if the provisions of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 had not come into force. 59. There are two significant expressions worth noticing in these similarly worded Sections 158 to 182. First, every such Section opens up with a non- obstante clause and it provides that notwithstanding anything contained in …… Act the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairman and other members of the Appellate Tribunal appointed after the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, shall be governed by the provisions of section 184 of that A ct . Second, Section 184 of the Finance Act overrides all other provisions in both the Finance Act, 2017 as well as the other twenty-five enactments which stand amended. 60. To critical analyse the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 184, reference must be made to the immediately preceding Section 183 which is to be found in sub-part S of the Act titled Conditions of service of Chairpersons and members of Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and other Authorities . Since Sections 183 and 184 would need to be read conjointly, both are reproduced below: S.—CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF TRIBUNALS, APPELLATE TRIBUNALS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES 183. Application of Section 184.— Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of the Acts specified in column (3) of the Eighth Schedule, on and from the appointed day, provisions of Section 184 shall apply to the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice- President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, other Authorities as specified in column (2) of the said Schedule: Provided that the provisions of Section 184 shall not apply to the Chairperson, Vice- Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or, as the case may be, Member holding such office as such immediately before the appointed day. 184. Qualifications, appointment, term and conditions of service, salary and allowances, etc., of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Members, etc., of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities.— (1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules to provide for qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, other Authorities as specified in column (2) of the Eighth Schedule: Provided that the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or other Authority shall hold office for such term as specified in the rules made by the Central Government but not exceeding five years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for reappointment: Provided further that no Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member shall hold office as such after he has attained such age as specified in the rules made by the Central Government which shall not exceed,— (a) in the case of Chairperson, Chairman [President or the Presiding Officer of the Securities Appellate Tribunal], the age of seventy years; (b) in the case of Vice-Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Vice-President, Presiding Officer [of the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the Central Government and the Debts Recovery Tribunal] or any other Member, the age of sixty-seven years: (2) Neither the salary and allowances nor the other terms and conditions of service of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice- President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, other Authority may be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. 61. Further, the Central Government in purported exercise of its powers under the aforementioned provisions, has notified the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 [in short the Rules]. PETITIONERS CASE : 62. The pleadings and arguments in most of the individual cases are similar and overlapping. Hence, for the sake of brevity, it is not necessary to refer to the submissions of each of the counsel individually. Broadly, however, petitioners have questioned the validity of Part XIV read with the 8 th and 9 th Schedules of the Finance Act 2017, as being ex-facie unconstitutional, arbitrary, in colourable exercise of legislative power, and offensive to the basic structure of the Constitution. 63. The foremost contention on behalf of the petitioners is that Part-XIV could not and ought not to have been made part of the Finance Act, 2017 as the said part is not classifiable as a money bill. Emphasis was placed on the wordings of Article 110 which allows those bills which contain only provisions which fall within the metes and bounds of Clauses (a) to (g) thereof, to be treated as money bill. By virtue of inclusion of Part XIV, the entirety of the Finance Act, 2017 was contended to have lost its colour as a money bill under Article 110 and hence its passage without the assent of the Rajya Sabha as required under Article 107 renders it ultra vires the legislative scheme contemplated in the Constitution. 64. Learned counsels vehemently placed reliance on the Constituent Assembly Debates to lend strength to the importance of the expression only under Article 110(1). They seek to make out a case that such phraseology was deliberately incorporated in the Constitution by making a conscious departure from Section 37 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Inclusion of Part XIV in the Finance Act, 2017 is shown as being an act of camouflage and a colourable exercise and petitioners assert that such indirect manner of bypassing of the Rajya Sabha is impermissible. A larger narrative was presented before this Court, that is, of the Central Government undermining the character and essence of a bicameral legislature as envisaged under the Constitution; and interference of this Court was sought through examination of the substance of the legislation and not mere acceptance of the nomenclature accorded by the Lok Sabha Speaker under Article 110(3). 65. A nuanced argument was also furthered by petitioners counsels who highlighted that Tribunals are governed by Article 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution and laws enacted in this regard cannot be classified as money bills. Further, Parliament in making changes to Tribunals can trace its competence to Entry 11-A of List III of the Constitution which deals with administration of justice, and not financial matters. 66. Part XIV was also impugned for its effect of terminating the services of presiding officers and members of various now-defunct Tribunals, which was claimed as being a direct interference in the independence of the judiciary. 67. Section 184(1) of the Finance Act, 2017, in so far as it empowers the Central Government to make rules to provide for qualifications and procedure of appointment, conditions of service, terms and salaries was contended to suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. It was stated that the said provision takes away all judicial safeguards and makes the Tribunals amenable to the whims and fancies of the largest litigant, the State. This was contended as being against the grain of the Constitution, besides affecting administration of justice. In the alternative, counsels also contended that the present formulation of Rules under Section 184 was ultra vires the parent enactment and the binding dictum expressed by this Court in a catena of judgments. 68. Further, during the course of arguments, various other deficiencies and contradictions in the administration of Tribunals and certain anomalous situations like providing direct appeals to this Court were highlighted, which were contended as being against the spirit of the Constitution. Petitioners, in addition to challenging the vires of the Finance Act, 2017 also prayed for a mandamus directing the State to mandatorily conduct Judicial Impact Assessment of legislations. UNION OF INDIAS CASE : 69. Learned Attorney General, on the other hand, passionately drew attention to the existence of over 40 tribunals, statutory commissions, and authorities functioning under the Government of India, each of which has been established under a different enactment and is governed by different set of rules. As a result, the conditions of service, modes of appointment, tenures etc. of members and presiding officers in different Tribunals were shown as vastly varying from one to another, giving rise to several anomalies and distortions. He put forth multiple examples; like how while members of some of the Commissions/Tribunals enjoy the status of Supreme Court judges, others like the members of the Debt Recovery Tribunal have only been kept at par with District Court judges. Similarly, while a person once appointed to the ITAT can continue till the age of superannuation, tenures of persons appointed to the APTEL was merely three years. The Attorney General attributed such inconsistencies as drafting errors and further stressed the need to streamline and harmonise the applicable rules, which is what was attempted through the Finance Act, 2017. 70. He also highlighted the inherent contradiction in according status and rank equivalent to that of Constitutional Court judges to members and presiding officers of such Tribunals and regulatory bodies. It was argued that the two have different functions and roles in our Constitutional setup. While the Supreme Court had a strength of 31 judges (when the matter was argued), he pointed out, that there are more than 50 functionaries enjoying the conditions of service of a Supreme Court judge and more than 150 such functionaries who have been brought at par with High Court judges. After placing on record multiple problems arising in the administration of justice as a result of such practice, he advocated the need to keep rank and status separate from salary and allowances. 71. Learned Attorney General further relied upon an order passed by this Court in Rajiv Garg vs. Union of India (WP No. 120 of 2017) on 08 th February, 2013 directing that a decision be taken by the Central Government on uniformity of service conditions in various tribunals. Reliance was also placed on the 13 th Report of the 2 nd Administrative Reforms Commission submitted in April 2009 which recommended greater uniformity in service conditions in various tribunals. It was pointed out that, in fact, the Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and other Authorities (Conditions of Service) Bill, 2014 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 14 th February, 2014 but somehow could not be passed. Introducing separate amendments for each of these Tribunals would have been unwieldy and impractical, besides resulting in several inconsistencies. Resultantly, he submits a holistic view was taken and a single enactment was sought to be introduced in order to harmoniously bring uniformity. 72. On behalf of the Union, the petitioners contentions were elaborately refuted. It was submitted that it is a settled principle of Constitutional interpretation that terms of the Constitution, including Clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1), must be interpreted in their widest amplitude, with the result that when the principal enactment had the dominant character of a money bill, all matters incidental thereto and inserted therein would also draw the colour and characteristic of a money bill. 73. In the alternative, he took aid of Clause (3) of Article 110 to contend that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha was the final and only Constitutional authority to adjudge the nature of a bill sought to be introduced under Article 109. Such decision was both final and hence not subject to any judicial review by any Court; even otherwise such exercise of passing legislations and certifications by the Speaker were proceedings in Parliament and could hence not be called in question before this Court in view of Article 122(1). 74. Both sides have extensively relied upon case law and Constitutional history to substantiate their respective pleas. Relevant portions of the same are being referred to in the latter parts of this judgment whenever necessary. BRIEF REFERENCE TO INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS : 75. After considering the suggestions filed during the course of hearing in SLP(C) No. 15804/2017, this Court passed an interim order on 9 February 2018, suggesting: 1. Staying the composition of Search-cum-Selection Committee as prescribed in Column 4 of the Schedule to the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, experience and other conditions of service of members) Rules, 2017 both in respect of Chairman/Judicial Members and Administrative Members. A further direction to constitute an interim Search-cum- Selection Committee during the pendency of this W.P. in respect of both Judicial/Administrative members as under : a. Chief Justice of India or his nominee - Chairman b. Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal - Member c. Two Secretaries nominated by the Government of India - Members 2. Appointment to the post of Chairman shall be made by nomination by the Chief Justice of India. 3. Stay the terms of office of 3 years as prescribed in Column 5 of the Schedule to the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualification, experience and other conditions of service of members) Rules, 2017. A further direction fixing the term of office of all selectees by the aforementioned interim Search-cum- Selection Committee and consequent appointees as 5 years. 4. All appointments to be made in pursuance to the selection made by the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be with conditions of service as applicable to the Judges of High Court. 5. A further direction to the effect that all the selections made by the aforementioned interim selection committee and the consequential appointment of all the selectees as Chairman/Judicial/Administrative members for a term of 5 years with conditions of service as applicable to Judges of High Court shall not be affected by the final outcome of the Writ Petition. 76. The learned Attorney General agreed with all except the fourth and fifth suggestions reproduced above, and suggested certain modifications as follows: 4. All appointments to be made in pursuance to the selection made by the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee shall abide by the conditions of service as per the old Acts and the Rules. 5. A further direction to the effect that all the selections made by the aforementioned interim selection committee and the consequential appointment of all the selectees as Chairman/Judicial/Administrative members shall be for a period as has been provided in the old Acts and the Rules. 77. This Court agreed to the learned Attorney Generals suggestions and accordingly made the following operative directions: In view of the aforesaid, we accept the suggestions and direct that the same shall be made applicable for selection of the Chairpersons and the Judicial/Administrative/ Technical/Expert Members for all tribunals. 78. Since many of the Search-cum-Selection Committees had initiated selection processes and had completed a substantial portion of the exercise prior to the above order dated 9 th February, 2018, this Court, on 12 th February, 2018 passed the following order: As some Committees had proceeded, the matter was listed for further hearing. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Rohit Bhat, learned counsel assisting the learned Attorney General for the Union of India shall file the status of the selection process by the Committees, by 13.2.2018. Mr. Arvind Datar, Mr. C.A. Sundaram and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned senior counsel shall also file through their Advocates-on- Record a joint memorandum with regard to which tribunals are covered and not covered. The same shall be filed by 10.30 a.m. on 13.2.2018. Orders reserved. 79. Further, vide order dated 20 th March 2018, this Court clarified its previous order of 9 th February 2018 and directed: (iii) The tenure of the Chairperson and the Judicial/Administrative/Expert/Technical Members of all the Tribunals shall be for a period of five years or the maximum age that was fixed/determined under the old Acts and Rules; 80. The following directions were also issued on 16 th July, 2018 with regard to the age of superannuation of Members of the ITAT: At this juncture, we may note that there is some confusion with regard to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as regards the age of superannuation. We make it clear that the person selected as Member of the ITAT will continue till the age of 62 years and the person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years. 81. Corollary to the order dated 16 th July 2018, six officers who had been selected as Member (Judicial) in CESTAT, also demanded the age of superannuation as noted in the case of Members of ITAT, to be applicable to them. Following the same dictum, vide order dated 21 st August 2018, clarification regarding the age of superannuation for Members of CESTAT, Armed Forces Tribunal and Central Administrative Tribunal was made. The relevant portion of that order reads as follows: CESTAT: 2. In IA 113281 of 2018, the applicant is an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of West Bengal, who has been selected as Member (Judicial) in the CESTAT. The notification of appointment of six officers who have been selected as Member (Judicial), including the applicant, stipulates that they shall hold office for a period of five years or till attaining the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier in terms of the Honble Supreme Courts order dated 20 March 2018 . A member of the judicial service would have ordinarily continued until the date of superannuation in the state judicial service, subject to the service rules. It would be manifestly inappropriate to adopt an interpretation as a result of which, upon assuming office as Member (Judicial) in CESTAT the officer will have a tenure which will expire after five years, if it falls prior to attaining the age of 62 years. We, accordingly, are of the view that the clarification issued for the ITAT in the order dated 20 March 2018 needs to be reiterated in the case of the members of the CESTAT, which we do. We clarify that a person selected as Member of the CESTAT will continue until the age of 62 years while a person holding the post of President shall continue until the age of 65 years. AFT: 3. Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 65 years. Chairpersons who have been former Judges of the Supreme Court shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 70 years. CAT: 4. In the case of the Central Administrative Tribunal, we clarify that the old rules/provisions shall continue to apply. CONCEPT NOTE OF LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE : 82. On the request of this Court, learned Senior Advocate Arvind Datar has provided invaluable assistance as the Amicus Curiae. In his detailed Concept Note, he has stressed the need for setting up an independent oversight body in light of the observations in L. Chandra Kumar (supra), and as reiterated in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2015) (supra) to the effect that Tribunals or their members should not be required to seek facilities from the sponsoring or parent ministries or concerned departments. 83. The Concept Note also emphasised the need to implement the 74 th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee which recommended the creation of a `National Tribunal Commission (NTC) to oversee all the Tribunals in the country. Mr. Datar further suggests that such National Tribunal Commission may consist of the following: Two retired Supreme Court Judges (with the senior-most amongst them to be Chairman). Two retired High Court Judges (Members). Three members representing the Executive. 84. It is further suggested in the concept note that such members be appointed by the following Selection Committee : • Chief Justice of India (as Chairperson of the Committee who exercises a casting vote); Two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice of India; Current Law Minister; and Leader of the opposition. 85. The Concept Note also contains the following suggestions: The NTC should oversee functioning of central Tribunals and similar body may be constituted for State Tribunals. The NTC should deal with appointment and removal of members of the Tribunals by constituting sub-committees. The member of the Tribunals should be recruited by national competition. Once recruited they should continue till the age of 62/65 years subject to their efficiency and satisfactory working. The Tribunals should not be haven for retired persons and appointment process should not result in decisions being influenced if the Government itself is a litigant and the appointing authority at the same time. There should be restriction on acceptance of any employment after retirement. Bypassing of High Court jurisdiction under Article 226/227 need to be remedied by statutory amendment excluding direct appeals to this Court. There should be proper mechanism for removal of members. 86. The aforementioned Concept Note of Learned Amicus Curiae was considered by this Court on 07.05.2018, resulting in the following observations:- We broadly approve the concept of having an effective and autonomous oversight body for all the Tribunals with such exceptions as may be inevitable. Such body should be responsible for recruitments and oversight of functioning of members of the Tribunals. Regular cadre for Tribunals may be necessary. Learned amicus suggests setting up of all India Tribunal service on the pattern of U.K. The members can be drawn either from the serving officers in Higher Judicial Service or directly recruited with appropriate qualifications by national competition. Their performance and functioning must be reviewed by an independent body in the same was as superintendence by the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution. Direct appeals must be checked. Members of the Tribunals should not only be eligible for appointment to the High Courts but a mechanism should be considered whereby due consideration is given to them on the same pattern on which it is given to the members of Higher Judicial Service. This may help the High Courts to have requisite talent to deal with issues which arise from decisions of Tribunals. A regular cadre for the Tribunals can be on the pattern of cadres for the judiciary. The objective of setting up of Tribunals to have speedy and inexpensive justice will not in any manner be hampered in doing so. Wherever there is only one seat of the Tribunal, its Benches should be available either in all states or at least in all regions wherever there is litigation instead of only one place. 87. On 07.05.2018 itself, the following additional issues were also suggested for consideration: (i) Creation of a regular cadres laying down eligibility for recruitment for Tribunals; (ii) Setting up of an autonomous oversight body for recruitment and overseeing the performance and discipline of the members so recruited and other issues relating thereto; (iii) Amending the scheme of direct appeals to this Court so that the orders of Tribunals are subject to jurisdiction of the High Courts; (iv) Making Benches of Tribunals accessible to common man at convenient locations instead of having only one location at Delhi or elsewhere. In the alternative, conferring jurisdiction on existing courts as special Courts or Tribunals. 88. Thereafter, this Court opined the following recourse :- 20. The above issues may require urgent setting up of a committee, preferably of three members, one of whom must be retired judge of this Court who may be served in a Tribunal. Such Committee can have inter action with all stakeholders and suggest a mechanism consistent with the constitutional scheme as interpreted by this Court in several decisions referred to above and also in the light of recommendations of expert bodies. This exercise must be undertaken in a time bound manner. 89. This was followed by yet another order of 16 th May, 2018 recommending constitution of a Committee within two months and expecting the Committee to give its report within three months thereafter. FORMULATION OF ISSUES: 90. The core issues canvassed at the Bar concern the constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2017, particularly whether it satisfies the test of a money bill under Article 110 of the ConstitutionFurther, in the eventuality that it is held that the impugned legislation has been validly enacted, then does it through Section 184 excessively delegate legislative power to the ExecutiveFinally, whether the Rules thus framed as delegated legislation are ultra vires their parent enactments and are liable to be struck down? 91. In addition, learned Counsel for the parties have drawn attention to the need to rationalise the administration of Tribunals, especially the conditions of service, mode of appointment, security of tenure and requisite qualifications of members and presiding officers of various Tribunals. They have also highlighted the growing menace of pendency before this Court arising from direct statutory appeals from orders of such Tribunals. 92. In light of these arguments put forth by learned Counsels and the suggestions of by the Amicus Curiae, the following issues arise for our consideration: I. Whether the Finance Act, 2017 insofar as it amends certain other enactments and alters conditions of service of persons manning different Tribunals can be termed as a money bill under Article 110 and consequently is validly enacted? II. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative then Whether Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 is unconstitutional on account of Excessive Delegation? III. If Section 184 is valid, Whether Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 are in consonance with the Principal Act and various decisions of this Court on functioning of Tribunals? IV. Whether there should be a Single Nodal Agency for administration of all Tribunals? V. Whether there is a need for conducting a Judicial Impact Assessment of all Tribunals in India? VI. Whether judges of Tribunals set up by Acts of Parliament under Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution can be equated in rank and status with Constitutional functionaries? VII. Whether direct statutory appeals from Tribunals to the Supreme Court ought to be detoured? VIII. Whether there is a need for amalgamation of existing Tribunals and setting up of benches. ISSUE I: WHETHER THE FINANCE ACT, 2017 INSOFAR AS IT AMENDS CERTAIN OTHER ENACTMENTS AND ALTERS CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF PERSONS MANNING DIFFERENT TRIBUNALS CAN BE TERMED AS A MONEY BILL UNDER ARTICLE 110 AND CONSEQUENTLY IS VALIDLY ENACTED? 93. The Indian Parliament is a bicameral legislature. In order to become law, as per the general legislative scheme as provided under Article 107, an ordinary bill must be passed by a simple majority of both the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha and must then receive Presidential ratification. Ordinary bills can be introduced either by the government or by any private member in either house of Parliament. After securing requisite majority in the House it is introduced in, ordinary bills are then sent to the other House for its assent. The Constitution, however, makes two exemptions to this general legislative procedure for formulation of laws. 94. Article 368 provides for the Constituent power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution itself and concomitantly requires a higher threshold of majority in both houses of Parliament, and in certain cases also require the assent of a simple majority of the State legislatures. Article 110, in stark contrast, reverses the threshold and significantly reduces the role of the Rajya Sabha for money bills. Articles 109 and 110 provide that: 109. (1) A Money Bill shall not be introduced in the Council of States. (2) After a Money Bill has been passed by the House of the People it shall be transmitted to the Council of States for its recommendations and the Council of States shall within a period of fourteen days from the date of its receipt of the Bill return the Bill to the House of the People with its recommendations and the House of the People may thereupon either accept or reject all or any of the recommendations of the Council of States. (3) If the House of the People accepts any of the recommendations of the Council of States, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses with the amendments recommended by the Council of States and accepted by the House of the People. (4) If the House of the People does not accept any of the recommendations of the Council of States, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the House of the People without any of the amendments recommended by the Council of States. (5) If a Money Bill passed by the House of the People and transmitted to the Council of States for its recommendations is not returned to the House of the People within the said period of fourteen days, it shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses at the expiration of the said period in the form in which it was passed by the House of the People. 110. (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely:— (a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax; (b) the regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government of India, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the Government of India; (c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund; (d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India; (e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure; (f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of India or the custody or issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of the Union or of a State; or (g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f). (2) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by reason only that it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for licences or fees for services rendered, or by reason that it provides for the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes. (3) If any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the House of the People thereon shall be final. (4) There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is transmitted to the Council of States under article 109, and when it is presented to the President for assent under article 111, the certificate of the Speaker of the House of the People signed by him that it is a Money Bill. 95. Money bills as defined under Article 110(1) thus include bills which contain only provisions covered by sub-clauses (a) to (g). These money bills can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and the role of the Rajya Sabha is merely consultative. Unlike in the case of ordinary bills where the Upper House can block the proposed legislation and act as a check on the power of the directly elected Lower House, in case of money bills, the Rajya Sabha merely has the ability to recommend amendments, that too only within fourteen days. In case the Lok Sabha refuses to accept those recommendations or in case no recommendations are made by the Rajya Sabha within the period of fourteen days, the money bill can be directly sent for Presidential ratification and thereafter it becomes valid law. 96. Such an exceptional provision has its roots in British tradition and is an inheritance of the Westminster form of government. The Parliament Act of 1911 was formulated by the United Kingdom Parliament in response to the Constitutional crisis of 1909 whereby the unelected Upper House (House of Lords) had stalled important budgetary bills passed by the elected Lower House (House of Commons), causing a governmental crisis and forcing the elected government to resign and seek re-election. Through Section 3, the said enactment required the Speaker of the House of Commons to certify that the bill was a money bill and post such certification, the Upper House would forfeit its ability to amend or veto the bill. Further, it also allowed public bills to become law irrespective of refusal by the House of Lords, in case the House of Commons had passed the same draft thrice in a minimum span of two years. It must be noted that the Indian adaptation under Article 109 and 110 do not have exceptions for public bills nor do they explicitly provide that such certification shall not be amenable to judicial review unlike in the Parliament Act of 1911. 97. The Constitution of India by Article 110(4), requires that every money bill be certified to be so by the Speaker before it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for their non-binding consideration. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha hence is the only appropriate authority to decide the nature of a bill under Article 110(3). 98. In the present dispute, the Union has relied upon the finality accorded to such certification by the terminology of Article 110(3) which provides that in case of any dispute as to the nature of a bill, the decision of the Speaker of the House of the People thereon shall be final. The Lok Sabha Speaker, in fact, on a dispute having so arisen has adjudicated the then Finance Bill, 2017 to be a money bill. Further, the Union also places emphasis on Article 122(1) of the Constitution which provides that: 122. (1) The validity of any proceedings in Parliament all not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. 99. The Union thus, alternatively, contends that the challenge before this Court to the certification of the Speaker of the Finance Bill, 2017 as a money bill and its consequent passage without the assent of the Rajya Sabha would at best amount to an irregularity of procedure of proceedings in Parliament and hence cannot be inquired into by this Court. 100. It must be noted once again, that like Articles 109 and 110, Article 122 of our Constitution too can be traced to the Constitutional history and developments in the United Kingdom. Certain Members of Parliament were tried and imprisoned for their remarks in Parliament during the seventeenth century resulting in the enactment of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688 which specifies that …. proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court…. Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India provides a direct corollary of Article 122(1) with respect to State legislatures. 101. This provision was initially interpreted in MSM Sharma vs. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha AIR 1959 SC 395 . to mean that legislative business cannot be invalidated even if it is not strictly in compliance with law for such issues were within the special jurisdiction of the legislature to regulate its own business. 102. The Unions contention that Article 122 would exempt from judicial scrutiny passage of bills is a far-fetched contention. If such a blanket exemption were to be granted, then it would open the floodgates to deviation from any Constitutional provision governing the functioning of Parliament and its legislative procedure. Since the Constitution explicitly provides a self-contained detailed procedure for enactment of legislation, and does not suggest that mere assent of the President to a law, by whatsoever method adopted, would become a valid law, it is necessary that this Court being the highest Constitutional forum for judicial review is provided with enough space for enforcement and protection of the Constitutional scheme. A perusal of the expressions used in Article 122 and a comparison with its British roots make it clear that the proceedings referred to include the power of the Parliament to frame its own rules, set out procedures for debate and discussion and powers to enforce disciple. Section 3 of the Parliament Act, 1911 in the United Kingdom makes the decision of the Speaker of the House of Commons conclusive for all purposes and shall not be questioned in any court of law. The Constitution of India however, under Article 110(3), states that if any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the House of the People thereon shall be final. A different syntax seems to indicate that our Constitution makes the decision of the Speaker as to the nature of Bill final qua members of both the Houses of Parliament, though it is not conclusive and unchallengeable before the Courts. The scope of judicial review of decisions that enjoy the status of finality under the Constitution has been examined by this Court on several occasions. We would like to refer to a few precedents in this regard. In Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184 , this Court had examined the ambit and scope of judicial review in matters of Parliamentary privileges and powers under Article 105 of the Constitution. The Court had held that under Article 122(1) and 212(1), immunity that has been granted is limited to irregularity of procedure and does not extend to substantive illegality or unconstitutionality by observing: Any attempt to read a limitation into Article 122 so as to restrict the courts jurisdiction to examination of the Parliaments procedure in case of unconstitutionality, as opposed to illegality would amount to doing violence to the constitutional text. Applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (whatever has not been included has by implication been excluded), it is plain and clear that prohibition against examination on the touchstone of irregularity of procedure does not make taboo judicial review on findings of illegality or u nc on s ti t uti on a l i ty . In Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter (1971) 1 SCC 396 , this Court had examined clause (3) to Article 217 which makes the decision of the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India final, if the question arises as to the age of a Judge of a High Court. It was observed that notwithstanding the declared finality of the order of the President, the Court can, in appropriate cases when the order has been passed on collateral considerations or the rules of natural justice are not observed or when the judgment of the President is coloured by the advice or representation made by the Executive or is made with no evidence, set aside the order of the President made under Article 217(3). The Courts, however, do not sit in appeal over the judgment of the President or decide the weight to be attached to the evidence which is entirely within the domain of the President. Reading of the above decisions exposit that finality of decisions under the Constitution has been subject to judicial review by the Courts. However, the jurisdiction exercisable by the Courts in such matters is rather limited and is subject to the satisfaction of specific conditions as discussed. We find no good ground and reason to take a different view with respect to the power of judicial review against certification of a bill as a Money Bill by the Speaker under Article 110(4). Article 110(3) which makes this decision final qua both the Houses of Parliament and Article 122(1) which prohibits review by the courts in matters of irregularity of procedure cannot operate as a bar when a challenge is made on the ground of illegality or unconstitutionality under the Constitutional scheme. 103. Determining whether an impugned action or breach is an exempted irregularity or a justiciable illegality is a matter of judicial interpretation and would undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Courts and cannot be left to the sole authority of the Parliament to decide. Such a position has also been taken in the United Kingdom by the House of Lords in R (Jackson) vs. Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56. where notwithstanding the explicit bar to judicial consideration of all Parliamentary proceedings (and not just procedural irregularities as under the Constitution of India), the Court assumed jurisdiction whilst noting that interpretation of statutes dealing with legislative processes would fall within the domain of the Courts; statutory interpretation being a judicial exercise, regardless of the immunities granted to parliamentary proceedings under the Bill of Rights. 104. It would hence be gainsaid that gross violations of the Constitutional scheme would not be mere procedural irregularities and hence would be outside the limited ambit of immunity from judicial scrutiny under Article 122(1). In the case at hand, jurisdiction of this Court is, hence, not barred. 105. On the substantive question of whether the Finance Act, 2017 was a money bill under Article 110(3) it must be noted that until the turn of the twenty-first century, this Court took a consistent position that Article 110(3) of the Constitution would act as an express bar against judicial inquiry into the correctness of the certificate of money bill given by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. 106. In Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 11 SCC 415 , a three-judge bench refused to judicially review the speakers certification of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas (Amendment) Bill as a Money bill. The phrase proceedings of the Legislature under Article 212(1) was interpreted to include everything said or done in either house. This Court thus held: 43. As discussed above, the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final and the said decision cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of the State Legislature be questioned by virtue of Article 212. Further, as noted earlier, Article 255 also shows that under the Constitution the matters of procedure do not render invalid an Act to which assent has been given to by the President or the Governor, as the case may be. Inasmuch as the Bill in question was a Money Bill, the contrary contention by the Petitioner against the passing of the said Bill by the Legislative Assembly alone is unacceptable. 107. This was relied upon in Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar (2016) 3 SCC 183 , wherein a division bench of this Court refused to judicially review the certification of money bill accorded by the Speaker to the Orissa Special Courts Bill noting that it was settled post Mohd. Siddiqui (supra) that any such certification would be an irregularity and not a substantiality. 108. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1 , was tasked with a similar question of the certification of money bill accorded to the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The majority opinion after noting the important role of the Rajya Sabha in a bicameral legislative setup, observed that Article 110 being an exceptional provision, must be interpreted narrowly. Although the majority opinion did not examine the correctness of the decisions in Md. Siddiqui (supra) and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal (supra) or conclusively pronounce on the scope of jurisdiction or power of this Court to judicially review certification by the Speaker under Article 110(3), yet, it independently reached a conclusion that the impugned enactment fell within the four-corners of Articles 110(1) and hence was a money bill. The minority view rendered, however, explicitly overruled both Md. Siddiqui (supra) and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal (supra). 109. The majority opinion in Puttaswamy (supra) by examining whether or not the impugned enactment was in fact a money bill under Article 110 without explicitly dealing with whether or not certification of the speaker is subject to judicial. review, has kept intact the power of judicial review under Article 110(3). It was further held therein that the expression money bill cannot be construed in a restrictive sense and that the wisdom of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in this regard must be valued, save where it is blatantly violative of the scheme of the Constitution. We respectfully endorse the view in Puttaswamy (supra) and are in no doubt that Md. Siddiqui and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal in so far as they put decisions of the Speaker under Article 110(3) beyond judicial review, cannot be relied upon. 110. It must be emphasized that the scope of judicial review in matters under Article 110(3) is extremely restricted, with there being a need to maintain judicial deference to the Lok Sabha Speakers certification. There would be a presumption of legality in favour of the Speakers decision and onus would undoubtedly be on the person challenging its validity to show that such certification was grossly unconstitutional or tainted with blatant substantial illegality. Courts ought not to replace the Speakers assessment or take a second plausible interpretation. Instead, judicial review must be restricted to only the very extreme instance where there is a complete disregard to the Constitutional scheme itself. It is not the function of Constitutional Courts to act as appellate forums, especially on the opinion of the Speaker, for doing so would invite the risk of paralyzing the functioning of the Parliament. 111. In light of the aforementioned narrow scope of inquiry and the high burden to be discharged by the petitioner(s) against the Speakers certification, we may now examine the challenge laid to the Finance Act, 2017. 112. Provisions of Part XIV can be broken down into three broad categories. First, abolition and merger of existing Tribunals; second, uniformizing and delegating to the Central Government through the Rules the power to lay down qualifications; method of appointment and removal, and terms and conditions of service of Presiding Officers and members; and third, termination of services and payment of compensation to presiding officers and members of certain tribunals that have now become de-funct. 113. Interpretation of Article 110 was made by a coordinate Constitution Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) and is relied upon by both sides. 114. The majority judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) under the heading Money Bill, in paragraph 448 and then in paragraphs 452 to 461, had recorded the submissions made by the learned counsel, including the submission made on behalf of the petitioners relying upon the word only appearing in Article 110 which defines a Money Bill. With regard to the interpretation to be given to the meaning of the word only, reliance was placed on Hari Ram v. Babu Gopal Prasad (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 608 and M/s Saru Smelting (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 97 . The majority judgment had thereupon referred to the power of judicial review notwithstanding the use of the word final with reference to the power of the Speaker under Article 110(3) of the Constitution, an aspect which we have already answered earlier, and examined Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act to observe it is also accepted by the petitioners that Section 7 is the main provision of the A ct . Thereafter, reference was made to the other provisions of the Aadhaar Act to record the majority opinion that the bill in question was rightly introduced as a Money Bill. The majority judgment, therefore, did not elucidate and explain the scope and ambit of sub-clauses (a) to (f) to clause (1) of Article 110 of the Constitution, a legal position and facet which arises for consideration in the present case and assumes considerable importance. 115. Ashok Bhushan, J., in his concurring judgment, from paragraph 886 onwards, had examined the issue of Money Bill and its justiciability and as noticed above, overruled Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui (supra) and Yogesh (supra) as not laying down the correct law by relying upon the decisions of this Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992) Supp. 2 SCC 651 and Raja Ram Pal (supra). Referring to the definition of Money Bill and the meaning and purpose of the word only used in Article 110(1) of the Constitution, Ashok Bhushan, J. had observed that legislative intent was that the main and substantive provision of an enactment should only be any or all of the sub-clauses from (a) to (f). In the event the main or substantive provisions of the Act are not covered by sub-clauses (a) to (f), the bill cannot be said to be a Money Bill See paragraph 905. It was further observed that the use of the word only in Article 110(1) has its purpose, which is clear restriction for a bill to be certified as a Money Bill See paragraph 906. Referring to the Aadhaar Act, it was observed that it veers around the governments constitutional obligation to provide for subsidies, benefits and services to individuals and other provisions are only incidental provisions to the main provision. Therefore, the Aadhaar Bill was rightly certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill. 116. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J., in his minority opinion on the said question, referring to the word only in Article 110(1) of the Constitution had observed that the pith and substance doctrine which is applicable to legislative entries would not apply when deciding the question whether or not a particular bill is a Money Bill. Referring to sub-clause (e) of Article 110(1), it was held that the Money Bill must deal with the declaration of any expenditure to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (or increasing the amount of expenditure) and, therefore, Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act did not have the effect of making the bill a Money Bill as it did not declare the expenditure incurred on services, benefits or subsidies to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India. Section 7 mandates Aadhaar for availing services, benefits or subsidies which were already charged to the Consolidated Fund of India. However, this view was not accepted by the majority judgment. 117. In the context of Article 110(1) of the Constitution, use of the word only in relation to sub-clauses (a) to (f) pose an interesting, albeit a difficult question which was not examined and answered by the majority judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5). While it may be easier to decipher a bill relating to imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax, difficulties would arise in the interpretation of Article 110(1) specifically with reference to sub-clauses (b) to (f) in a bill relating to borrowing of money or giving of any guarantee by the Government of India, or an amendment of law concerning financial obligation. In the book, Practices and Procedures of Parliament by Kaul and Shakdher, it is opined that unless the word only is interpreted in a right manner, Article 110(1) would be a nullity. A liberal and wide interpretation, on the other hand, possibly exposits an opposite consequence. Relevant portion of the opinion by Kaul and Shakdher reads: Speaker Mavalankar observed as follows:Prima facie, it appears to me that the words of article 110 (imposition, abolition, remission, alteration, regulation of any tax) are sufficiently wide to make the Consolidated Bill a Money Bill. A question may arise as to what is the exact significance or scope of the word only and whether and how far that word goes to modify or control the wide and general words imposition, abolition, remission, etc.. I think, prima facie, that the word only is not restrictive of the scope of the general terms. If a Bill substantially deals with the imposition, abolition, etc., of a tax, then the mere fact of the inclusion in the Bill of other provisions which may be necessary for the administration of that tax or, I may say, necessary for the achievement of the objective of the particular Bill, cannot take away the Bill from the category of Money Bills. One has to look to the objective of the bill. Therefore, if the substantial provisions of the Bill aim at imposition, abolition, etc., of any tax then the other provisions would be incidental and their inclusion cannot be said to take it away from the category of a Money Bill. Unless one construes the word only in this way it might lead to make article 110 a nullity. No tax can be imposed without making provisions for its assessment, collection, administration, reference to courts or tribunals, etc, one can visualise only one section in a Bill imposing the main tax and there may be fifty other sections which may deal with the scope, method, manner, etc., of that imposition. Further, we have also to consider the provisions of sub-clause (2) of article 110; and these provisions may be helpful to clarify the scope of the word only, not directly but indirectly. 118. The majority judgment did not advert to the doctrine of pith and substance whereas judgment of Ashok Bhushan, J. had referred to the dominant purpose. The test of dominant purpose possibly has its own limitation as many a legislation would have more than one dominant objective especially when this prescription is read with reference to sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Article 110(1) of the Constitution. Further, determination of what constitutes paramount and cardinal purpose of the legislation and the test applicable to determine this compunction and incertitude itself is not free from ambiguity. Difficulties would arise with reference to sub- clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 110(1), when we apply the principles of dominant or the main purpose of an enactment test. Sub-clause (c) to Article 110(1) refers to payment of monies into or withdrawal of monies from the Consolidated Fund of India. Sub-clause (d) refers to appropriation of monies out of the Consolidated Fund of India. Sub-clause (e) refers to declaration of any expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or increasing of the amount of such expenditure. Sub-clause (f) relates to receipt of money on account of Consolidated Fund of India or Public Account of India or issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of the Union or of State. Even clause (b) in its amplitude includes an amendment of the law in respect of a financial obligation undertaken or to be undertaken by the Government of India. Once we hold that the decision of the Speaker under clause (3) of Article 110 of the Constitution though final, is subject to judicial scrutiny on the principle of constitutional illegality, the provisions of Article 110(1) have to be given an appropriate meaning and interpretation to avoid and prevent over-inclusiveness or under-inclusiveness. Any interpretation would have far reaching consequences. It is therefore, necessary that there should be absolute clarity with regard to the provisions and any ambiguity and debate should be ironed out and affirmatively decided. In case of doubt, certainly the opinion of the Speaker would be conclusive, but that would not be a consideration to avoid answering and deciding the scope and ambit of Money Bill under Article 110(1) of the Constitution. For example, taxation enactments like the Income Tax Act would qualify as Money Bill under sub-clause (a) to clause (1) of Article 110 and may include provisions relating to Appellate Tribunals which would possibly qualify as incidental provisions covered under sub-clause (g) to clause (1) of Article 110, even if we exclude application of sub-clause (d) to clause (1) of Article 110. The position it could be argued would be different with reference to provisions for constitution of a tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act or the National Green Tribunal Act. The bill could however state that the expenditure would be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. 119. Another aspect which would arise for consideration would be the legal consequences in case a Non-Money Bill certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill, when presented before the Rajya Sabha is specifically objected to on this count by some Members, but on being put to vote no recommendations are made in respect of Non-Money Bill related provisions. 120. The petitioners had argued on the strength of the concurring opinion by Ashok Bhushan, J. holding that in addition to at least one provision falling under Article 110(1) (a) to (f), each of the other remaining provisions must also be incidental to such core provision(s), and hence must satisfy the requirement of Article 110(g). Such an interpretation, it was contended, would make the insertion of the word only under the prefatory part of Article 110(1) purposeful, which was said to have been glossed over by the Union. Further, it was contended that the manner in which the majority correlated Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act to Article 110(1)(e) was erroneous, for it only regulated procedure for withdrawal by imposing a requirement for authentication and did not declare any expenditure to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India. They had contended that the interpretation of the enactment by the majority judgement was constitutionally inexact and that a similar analysis ought not to be made in the present case. The petitioners, therefore, contend that every impugned provision be individually examined and brought either under Article 110(1)(a) to (f) or be incidental thereto, as permitted by Article 110(g). In case even a single provision did not satisfy either of the aforementioned two categories, then the entire Finance Act, 2017 would be an affront to the prefatory phraseology of Article 110(1) and must be declared as being unconstitutional. 121. However, the learned Attorney General has propounded that constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2017 would be safe if its dominant provisions, which form the core of the enactment, fall within the ambit of Article 110(1)(a) to (f). Other minor provisions, even if not strictly incidental, could take the dominant colour and could be passed along with it as a Money Bill. As per such interpretation, provisions ought not to be read in a piece-meal manner, and judicial review ought to be applied deferentially. 122. Upon an extensive examination of the matter, we notice that the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) pronounced the nature of the impugned enactment without first delineating the scope of Article 110(1) and principles for interpretation or the repercussions of such process. It is clear to us that the majority dictum in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) did not substantially discuss the effect of the word only in Article 110(1) and offers little guidance on the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a Money Bill do not conform to Article 110(1)(a) to (g). Its interpretation of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act was arguably liberal and the Courts satisfaction of the said provisions being incidental to Article 110(1)(a) to (f), it has been argued is not convincingly reasoned, as might not be in accord with the bicameral Parliamentary system envisaged under our constitutional scheme. Without expressing a firm and final opinion, it has to be observed that the analysis in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) makes its application difficult to the present case and raises a potential conflict between the judgements of coordinate Benches. 123. Given the various challenges made to the scope of judicial review and interpretative principles (or lack thereof) as adumbrated by the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) and the substantial precedential impact of its analysis of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, it becomes essential to determine its correctness.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]37. Tribunals can thus be viewed as alternate avenues to facilitate swift dispensation of justice through less-formal procedures of adjudication. An examination of existing Tribunals in India and across foreign jurisdictions, shows that they are best suited to deal with complex subject-matters requiring technical expertise such as service law, tax law, company law or environment law, etc102. The Unions contention that Article 122 would exempt from judicial scrutiny passage of bills is a far-fetched contention. If such a blanket exemption were to be granted, then it would open the floodgates to deviation from any Constitutional provision governing the functioning of Parliament and its legislative procedure. Since the Constitution explicitly provides a self-contained detailed procedure for enactment of legislation, and does not suggest that mere assent of the President to a law, by whatsoever method adopted, would become a valid law, it is necessary that this Court being the highest Constitutional forum for judicial review is provided with enough space for enforcement and protection of the Constitutional scheme. A perusal of the expressions used in Article 122 and a comparison with its British roots make it clear that the proceedings referred to include the power of the Parliament to frame its own rules, set out procedures for debate and discussion and powers to enforce disciple. Section 3 of the Parliament Act, 1911 in the United Kingdom makes the decision of the Speaker of the House of Commons conclusive for all purposes and shall not be questioned in any court of law. The Constitution of India however, under Article 110(3), states that if any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the House of the People thereon shall be final. A different syntax seems to indicate that our Constitution makes the decision of the Speaker as to the nature of Bill final qua members of both the Houses of Parliament, though it is not conclusive and unchallengeable before the Courts. The scope of judicial review of decisions that enjoy the status of finality under the Constitution has been examined by this Court on several occasionsReading of the above decisions exposit that finality of decisions under the Constitution has been subject to judicial review by the Courts. However, the jurisdiction exercisable by the Courts in such matters is rather limited and is subject to the satisfaction of specific conditions as discussed. We find no good ground and reason to take a different view with respect to the power of judicial review against certification of a bill as a Money Bill by the Speaker under Article 110(4). Article 110(3) which makes this decision final qua both the Houses of Parliament and Article 122(1) which prohibits review by the courts in matters of irregularity of procedure cannot operate as a bar when a challenge is made on the ground of illegality or unconstitutionality under the Constitutional scheme103. Determining whether an impugned action or breach is an exempted irregularity or a justiciable illegality is a matter of judicial interpretation and would undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Courts and cannot be left to the sole authority of the Parliament to decide. Such a position has also been taken in the United Kingdom by the House of Lords in R (Jackson) vs. Attorney General[2005] UKHL 56. where notwithstanding the explicit bar to judicial consideration of all Parliamentary proceedings (and not just procedural irregularities as under the Constitution of India), the Court assumed jurisdiction whilst noting that interpretation of statutes dealing with legislative processes would fall within the domain of the Courts;statutory interpretation being a judicial exercise, regardless of the immunities granted to parliamentary proceedings under the Bill of Rights104. It would hence be gainsaid that gross violations of the Constitutional scheme would not be mere procedural irregularities and hence would be outside the limited ambit of immunity from judicial scrutiny under Article 122(1). In the case at hand, jurisdiction of this Court is, hence, not barred105. On the substantive question of whether the Finance Act, 2017 was a money bill under Article 110(3) it must be noted that until the turn of the twenty-first century, this Court took a consistent position that Article 110(3) of the Constitution would act as an express bar against judicial inquiry into the correctness of the certificate of money bill given by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha109. The majority opinion in Puttaswamy (supra) by examining whether or not the impugned enactment was in fact a money bill under Article 110 without explicitly dealing with whether or not certification of the speaker is subject to judicial. review, has kept intact the power of judicial review under Article 110(3). It was further held therein that the expression money bill cannot be construed in a restrictive sense and that the wisdom of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in this regard must be valued, save where it is blatantly violative of the scheme of the Constitution. We respectfully endorse the view in Puttaswamy (supra) and are in no doubt that Md. Siddiqui and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal in so far as they put decisions of the Speaker under Article 110(3) beyond judicial review, cannot be relied upon110. It must be emphasized that the scope of judicial review in matters under Article 110(3) is extremely restricted, with there being a need to maintain judicial deference to the Lok Sabha Speakers certification. There would be a presumption of legality in favour of the Speakers decision and onus would undoubtedly be on the person challenging its validity to show that such certification was grossly unconstitutional or tainted with blatant substantial illegality. Courts ought not to replace the Speakers assessment or take a second plausible interpretation. Instead, judicial review must be restricted to only the very extreme instance where there is a complete disregard to the Constitutional scheme itself. It is not the function of Constitutional Courts to act as appellate forums, especially on the opinion of the Speaker, for doing so would invite the risk of paralyzing the functioning of the Parliament111. In light of the aforementioned narrow scope of inquiry and the high burden to be discharged by the petitioner(s) against the Speakers certification, we may now examine the challenge laid to the Finance Act, 2017117. In the context of Article 110(1) of the Constitution, use of the word only in relation to sub-clauses (a) to (f) pose an interesting, albeit a difficult question which was not examined and answered by the majority judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5). While it may be easier to decipher a bill relating to imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax, difficulties would arise in the interpretation of Article 110(1) specifically with reference to sub-clauses (b) to (f) in a bill relating to borrowing of money or giving of any guarantee by the Government of India, or an amendment of law concerning financial obligation. In the book, Practices and Procedures of Parliament by Kaul and Shakdher, it is opined that unless the word only is interpreted in a right manner, Article 110(1) would be a nullity. A liberal and wide interpretation, on the other hand, possibly exposits an opposite consequence. Relevant portion of the opinion by Kaul and Shakdher reads:Speaker Mavalankar observed as follows:Prima facie, it appears to me that the words of article 110 (imposition, abolition, remission, alteration, regulation of any tax) are sufficiently wide to make the Consolidated Bill a Money Bill. A question may arise as to what is the exact significance or scope of the word only and whether and how far that word goes to modify or control the wide and general words imposition, abolition, remission, etc.. I think, prima facie, that the word only is not restrictive of the scope of the general terms. If a Bill substantially deals with the imposition, abolition, etc., of a tax, then the mere fact of the inclusion in the Bill of other provisions which may be necessary for the administration of that tax or, I may say, necessary for the achievement of the objective of the particular Bill, cannot take away the Bill from the category of Money Bills. One has to look to the objective of the bill. Therefore, if the substantial provisions of the Bill aim at imposition, abolition, etc., of any tax then the other provisions would be incidental and their inclusion cannot be said to take it away from the category of a Money Bill. Unless one construes the word only in this way it might lead to make article 110 a nullity. No tax can be imposed without making provisions for its assessment, collection, administration, reference to courts or tribunals, etc, one can visualise only one section in a Bill imposing the main tax and there may be fifty other sections which may deal with the scope, method, manner, etc., of that imposition. Further, we have also to consider the provisions of sub-clause (2) of article 110; and these provisions may be helpful to clarify the scope of the word only, not directly but indirectly118. The majority judgment did not advert to the doctrine of pith and substance whereas judgment of Ashok Bhushan, J. had referred to the dominant purpose. The test of dominant purpose possibly has its own limitation as many a legislation would have more than one dominant objective especially when this prescription is read with reference to sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Article 110(1) of the Constitution. Further, determination of what constitutes paramount and cardinal purpose of the legislation and the test applicable to determine this compunction and incertitude itself is not free from ambiguity. Difficulties would arise with reference to sub- clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 110(1), when we apply the principles of dominant or the main purpose of an enactment test. Sub-clause (c) to Article 110(1) refers to payment of monies into or withdrawal of monies from the Consolidated Fund of India. Sub-clause (d) refers to appropriation of monies out of the Consolidated Fund of India. Sub-clause (e) refers to declaration of any expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or increasing of the amount of such expenditure. Sub-clause (f) relates to receipt of money on account of Consolidated Fund of India or Public Account of India or issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of the Union or of State. Even clause (b) in its amplitude includes an amendment of the law in respect of a financial obligation undertaken or to be undertaken by the Government of India. Once we hold that the decision of the Speaker under clause (3) of Article 110 of the Constitution though final, is subject to judicial scrutiny on the principle of constitutional illegality, the provisions of Article 110(1) have to be given an appropriate meaning and interpretation to avoid and prevent over-inclusiveness or under-inclusiveness. Any interpretation would have far reaching consequences. It is therefore, necessary that there should be absolute clarity with regard to the provisions and any ambiguity and debate should be ironed out and affirmatively decided. In case of doubt, certainly the opinion of the Speaker would be conclusive, but that would not be a consideration to avoid answering and deciding the scope and ambit of Money Bill under Article 110(1) of the Constitution. For example, taxation enactments like the Income Tax Act would qualify as Money Bill under sub-clause (a) to clause (1) of Article 110 and may include provisions relating to Appellate Tribunals which would possibly qualify as incidental provisions covered under sub-clause (g) to clause (1) of Article 110, even if we exclude application of sub-clause (d) to clause (1) of Article 110. The position it could be argued would be different with reference to provisions for constitution of a tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act or the National Green Tribunal Act. The bill could however state that the expenditure would be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India122. Upon an extensive examination of the matter, we notice that the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) pronounced the nature of the impugned enactment without first delineating the scope of Article 110(1) and principles for interpretation or the repercussions of such process. It is clear to us that the majority dictum in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) did not substantially discuss the effect of the word only in Article 110(1) and offers little guidance on the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a Money Bill do not conform to Article 110(1)(a) to (g). Its interpretation of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act was arguably liberal and the Courts satisfaction of the said provisions being incidental to Article 110(1)(a) to (f), it has been argued is not convincingly reasoned, as might not be in accord with the bicameral Parliamentary system envisaged under our constitutional scheme. Without expressing a firm and final opinion, it has to be observed that the analysis in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) makes its application difficult to the present case and raises a potential conflict between the judgements of coordinate Benches123. Given the various challenges made to the scope of judicial review and interpretative principles (or lack thereof) as adumbrated by the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) and the substantial precedential impact of its analysis of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, it becomes essential to determine its correctness124. There is yet another reason why we feel the matter should be referred to a Constitution Bench of seven judges. L. Chandra Kumar (supra), which was decided by a Bench of seven Judges, had also interpreted on the ambit of supervision by the High Courts under Article 227(1) of the Constitution to observe that the Constitutional scheme does not require all adjudicatory bodies which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts should be subject to their supervisory jurisdiction, as the idea is to divest the High Courts of their onerous burden. Consequently, adding to their supervisory functions vide Article 227(1) cannot be of assistance in any manner. Thereafter, it was observed that different tribunals constituted under different enactments are administered by the Central and the State Governments, yet there was no uniformity in administration. This Court was of the view that until a wholly independent agency for such tribunals can be set up, it is desirable that all such tribunals should be, as far as possible, under a single nodal Ministry which will be in a position to oversee the working of these tribunals. For a number of reasons, the Court observed that the Ministry of Law would be the appropriate ministry. The Ministry of Law in turn was required to appoint an independent supervisory body to oversee the working of the Tribunals. As noticed above, this has not happened125. The second challenge against Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 is predicated on the assertion that this is a case of excessive delegation as it falters on the anvil of essential legislative functions and policy and guidelines tests126. The Eighth Schedule referred to in Section 183 contains a list of 19 tribunals with corresponding enactments under which they were constituted. Section 183 overrides the provisions of the enactments specified in column (3) of the Eighth Schedule and mandates that from the appointed date, the Chairperson, Vice- Chairperson, Chairman, Vice Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, other Authorities as specified in column (2) of the Eighth Schedule shall be appointed in terms of provisions of Section 184 of the Finance Act. These provisions however, do not apply to those who have already been appointed to the said posts immediately before the appointed date, that is the date on which the Central Government may, by a notification in the Official Gazette, bring the said provisions into effect130. Reading of the said provisions indicates that except for providing the upper age limit and that the person appointed shall not have tenure exceeding five years from the date on which he enters office and shall be eligible for re-appointment, the Finance Act delegates the power to specify the qualifications, method of selection and appointment, terms of office, salaries and allowances, removal including resignation and all other terms and conditions of service to the Central Government which would act as a delegatee of the Parliament. The governing statutory provisions embodied in the existing parent legislation specified in the column (3) of the Schedule and the rules made thereunder are overwritten and authority and power is conferred on the Central Government to decide qualifications for appointment, process for selection, and terms and conditions of service including salaries allowance, resignation and removal through delegated or subordinate legislationIt will be difficult to hold that Part XIV of the Finance Act suffers from thevice of unguided delegation as it fails to clearly specify the eligibility qualifications for the Members, Chairpersons, Chairman etc. of different Tribunals as such requirements, though important, are not per se functionally undelegatable143. The objects of the parent enactments as well as the law laid down by this Court in R.K. Jain (supra), L Chandra Kumar (supra), R. Gandhi (supra), Madras Bar Association (supra) and Gujarat Urja Vikas (supra) undoubtedly bind the delegate and mandatorily requires the delegate under Section 184 to act strictly in conformity with these decisions and the objects of delegated legislation stipulated in the statutes. It must also be emphasised that the Finance Act, 2017 nowhere indicates that the legislature had intended to differ from, let alone make amendments, to remove the edifice and foundation of such decisions by enacting the Finance Act. Indeed, the learned Attorney General was clear in suggesting that Part XIV was inserted with a view to incorporate the changes recommended by this Court in earlier decisions144. Independence of a quasi-judicial authority like the tribunal highlighted in the above decisions would be, therefore, read as the policy and guideline applicable. Principle of independence of judiciary/tribunal has within its fold two broad concepts, as held in Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Another v. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 1 See paragraph 714, (i) independence of an individual judge, that is, decisional independence; and (ii) independence of the judiciary or the Tribunal as an institution or an organ of the State, that is, functional independence. Individual independence has various facets which include security of tenure, procedure for renewal, terms and conditions of service like salary, allowances, etc. which should be fair and just and which should be protected and not varied to his/her disadvantage after appointment. Independence of the institution refers to sufficient degree of separation from other branches of the government, especially when the branch is a litigant or one of the parties before the tribunal. Functional independence would include method of selection and qualifications prescribed, as independence begins with appointment of persons of calibre, ability and integrity. Protection from interference and independence from the executive pressure, fearlessness from other power centres – economic and political, and freedom from prejudices acquired and nurtured by the class to which the adjudicator belongs, are important attributes of institutional independence148. On examining the Constitutional scheme, the statutes which had created tribunals and the precedents of this Court laying down attributes of independence of tribunals in different facets, we do not think that the power to prescribe qualifications, selection procedure and service conditions of members and other office holders of the tribunals is intended to vest solely with the Legislature for all times and purposes. Policy and guidelines exist. Subject to aforesaid, the submission of learned Attorney General that Section 184 was inserted to bring uniformity and with a view to harmonise the diverse and wide-ranging qualifications and methods of appointment across different tribunals carries weight and, in our view, needs to be accepted149. Cautioning against the potential misuse of Section 184 by the executive, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that any desecration by the Executive of such powers threatens and poses a risk to the independence of the tribunals. A mere possibility or eventuality of abuse of delegated powers in the absence of any evidence supporting such claim, cannot be a ground for striking down the provisions of the Finance Act, 2017. It is always open to a Constitutional court on challenge made to the delegated legislation framed by the Executive to examine whether it conforms to the parent legislation and other laws, and apply the policy and guideline test and if found contrary, can be struck down without affecting the constitutionality of the rule making power conferred under Section 186 of the Finance Act, 2017152. Composition of a Search-cum-Selection Committee is contemplated in a manner whereby appointments of Member, Vice-President and President are predominantly made by nominees of the Central Government. A perusal of the Schedule to the Rules shows that save for token representation of the Chief Justice of India or his nominee in some Committees, the role of the judiciary is virtually absent153. We are in agreement with the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner(s), that the lack of judicial dominance in the Search-cum-Selection Committee is in direct contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and is an encroachment on the judicial domain. The doctrine of separation of powers has been well recognised and re-interpreted by this Court as an important facet of the basic structure of the Constitution, in its dictum in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala(1973) 4 SCC 225 , and several other later decisions. The exclusion of the Judiciary from the control and influence of the Executive is not limited to traditional Courts alone, but also includes Tribunals since they are formed as an alternative to Courts and perform judicial functions154. Clearly, the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committees under the Rules amounts to excessive interference of the Executive in appointment of members and presiding officers of statutory Tribunals and would undoubtedly be detrimental to the independence of judiciary besides being an affront to the doctrine of separation of powers157. We are of the view that the Search-cum-Selection Committee as formulated under the Rules is an attempt to keep the judiciary away from the process of selection and appointment of Members, Vice-Chairman and Chairman of Tribunals. This Court has been lucid in its ruling in Supreme Court Advocates- on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 1 (Fourth Judges Case), wherein it was held that primacy of judiciary is imperative in selection and appointment of judicial officers including Judges of High Court and Supreme Court. Cognisant of the doctrine of Separation of Powers, it is important that judicial appointments take place without any influence or control of any other limb of the sovereign. Independence of judiciary is the only means to maintain a system of checks and balances on the working of Legislature and the Executive. The Executive is a litigating party in most of the litigation and hence cannot be allowed to be a dominant participant in judicial appointments158. We are in complete agreement with the analogy elucidated by the Constitution Bench in the Fourth Judges Case (supra) for compulsory need for exclusion of control of the Executive over quasi-judicial bodies of Tribunals discharging responsibilities akin to Courts. The Search-cum-Selection Committees as envisaged in the Rules are against the constitutional scheme inasmuch as they. dilute the involvement of judiciary in the process of appointment of members of tribunals which is in effect an encroachment by the executive on the judiciary. (B) Qualifications of members and presiding officers161. The contentions of the Learned Counsel for petitioner(s) are, therefore, duly accepted by this Court insofar as it is contended that the Rules have an effect of dilution of the judicial character in adjudicatory positions. It has been repeatedly ruled by this Court in a catena of decisions that judicial functions cannot be performed by technical members devoid of any adjudicatory experienceIt is also a well-established principle followed throughout in various other jurisdictions as well, that wherever Parliament decides to divest the traditional Courts of their jurisdiction and transfer the lis to some other analogous Court/Tribunal, the qualification and acumen of the members in such Tribunal must be commensurate with that of the Court from which the adjudicatory function is transferred. Adjudication of disputes which was originally vested in Judges of Courts, if done by technical or non-judicial member, is clearly a dilution and encroachment on judicial domain. With great respect, Parliament cannot divest judicial functions upon technical members, devoid of the either adjudicatory experience or legal knowledge164. It is necessary to notice few other changes brought about by the new Rules. Firstly, most Tribunals were earlier headed by judicial members. With the exception of some Tribunals like the Debt Recovery Tribunal, presiding officers were retired judges either of the Supreme Court or of High Courts. Under the present formulation of Rules, the Central Government has widened eligibility by making persons who otherwise have no judicial or legal experience but if they are otherwise of ability, integrity and standing, and having special knowledge of, and professional experience of certain specialised subjects which in the opinion of the Central Government is use ful eligible for being appointed as presiding officers. Further, others who are qualified to be Supreme Court and High Court judges can also head Tribunals. A perusal of Articles 124(3) and 217(2) of the Constitution shows that it specifies only the very minimum prerequisites for appointment as a judge of the Constitutional Courts. Instead, a predominant portion of the consideration for appointment to this Court or to the High Courts is uncodified and is based on a holistic consideration of the practice, legal acumen, expertise and character of Advocates. The effect of the new criteria would be to make every second advocate eligible, in effect, vastly diluting the qualifications for appointment. The characteristics necessary of such people are also vague which resultantly increases executive discretion. It thus affects both judicial independence as well as capability and competency of these Tribunals. The power/discretion vested to specify qualifications and decide who should man the Tribunals has to be exercised keeping in view the larger public interest and the same must be just, fair and reasonable and not vague or imprecise165. At this juncture it must also be reiterated that equality can only be amongst equals, and that it would be impermissible to treat unequals equally on the basis of undefined contours of Uniformity. A Tribunal to have the character of a quasi- judicial body and a legitimate replacement of Courts, must essentially possess a dominant judicial character through their members/presiding officers166. It appears to us to be incomprehensible as to how both Supreme Court and High Court judges can be eligible for the same post when their experience, exposure, knowledge and stature under the Constitution are vastly different and the two do not form one homogenous class. There can be no forced equality between the two. Doing so would be suggestive of non-application of mind. Such an exercise would merit judicial interference167. Further, dispensation of justice requires that the adjudicating institution command respect with the populace. Anomalous situations created by allowing High Court judges to be appointed to a position occupied earlier by a Supreme Court judge, affects the prestige of the Judiciary as an institution168. The stature of the people manning an institution lends credibility and colour to the institution itself. There is a perceptible signalling effect in having retired Supreme Court justices as presiding officers of a particular Tribunal of National importance. The same instils an inherent fairness, dignity and exalted status in the Tribunal. Permitting such institutions to be also occupied by persons who have not manned an equivalent position or those with lesser judicial experience, does not bode well for the Tribunal besides discouraging competent people from offering their services. On the same analogy, it would be an anathema to say that High Court judges and District Court judges can both occupy the same position in a Tribunal(C) Constitutionality of procedure of removal169. It is clear from the Scheme contemplated under the Rules that the government has significantly diluted the role of the Judiciary in appointment of judicial members. Further, in many Tribunals like the NGT, the role of the Judiciary in appointment of non-judicial members has entirely been taken away. Such a practice violates the Constitutional scheme and the dicta of this Court in various earlier decisions already referred to. It is also important to note that in many Tribunals like the National Green Tribunal where earlier removal of members or presiding officer could only be after an enquiry by Supreme Court Judges and with necessary consultation with the Chief Justice of India, under the present Rules it is permissible for the Central Government to appoint an enquiry committee for removal of any presiding officer or member on its own. The Rules are not explicit on who would be part of such a Committee and what would be the role of the Judiciary in the process. In doing so, it significantly weakens the independence of the Tribunal members. It is well understood across the world and also under our Constitutional framework that allowing judges to be removed by the Executive is palpably unconstitutional and would make them amenable to the whims of the Executive, hampering discharge of judicial functions170. In Madras Bar Association (2014) (supra), this Court held that:…it was acknowledged that Parliament was not precluded from establishing a court under a new name to exercise the jurisdiction that was being exercised by members of the higher judiciary at the time when the Constitution came into force. But when that was done, it was critical to ensure that the persons appointed to be members of such a court/tribunal should be appointed in the same manner and should be entitled to the same security of tenure as the holder of the judicial office at the time when the Constitution came into force. Even in the treatise Constitutional Law of Canada by Peter W. Hogg, it was observed: if a province invested a tribunal with a jurisdiction of a kind, which ought to properly belong to a Superior, District or Country Court, then that court/tribunal (created in its place), whatever is its official name, for constitutional purposes has to, while replacing a Superior, District or Country Court, satisfy the requirements and standards of the substituted court. This would mean that the newly constituted court/tribunal will be deemed to be invalidly constituted, till its members are appointed in the same manner, and till its members are entitled to the same conditions of service as were available to the Judges of the court sought to be substituted171. It is essential that the same be observed in letter and spirit and we therefore reiterate that Members and Presiding Officers of Tribunals cannot be removed without either the concurrence of the Judiciary or in the manner specified in the Constitution for Constitutional Court judges(C) Constitutionality of procedure of removal170. In Madras Bar Association (2014) (supra), this Court held that:…it was acknowledged that Parliament was not precluded from establishing a court under a new name to exercise the jurisdiction that was being exercised by members of the higher judiciary at the time when the Constitution came into force. But when that was done, it was critical to ensure that the persons appointed to be members of such a court/tribunal should be appointed in the same manner and should be entitled to the same security of tenure as the holder of the judicial office at the time when the Constitution came into force. Even in the treatise Constitutional Law of Canada by Peter W. Hogg, it was observed: if a province invested a tribunal with a jurisdiction of a kind, which ought to properly belong to a Superior, District or Country Court, then that court/tribunal (created in its place), whatever is its official name, for constitutional purposes has to, while replacing a Superior, District or Country Court, satisfy the requirements and standards of the substituted court. This would mean that the newly constituted court/tribunal will be deemed to be invalidly constituted, till its members are appointed in the same manner, and till its members are entitled to the same conditions of service as were available to the Judges of the court sought to be substituted171. It is essential that the same be observed in letter and spirit and we therefore reiterate that Members and Presiding Officers of Tribunals cannot be removed without either the concurrence of the Judiciary or in the manner specified in the Constitution for Constitutional Court judges(D) Term of Office and Maximum Age173. The Constitution of India doesnt differentiate between High Courts in terms of conditions of service of judges and prescribes a uniform age of superannuation for judges of all High Courts. Conforming to the principle, as held in earlier judgements of this Court, the Tribunals should have similar standards of appointment and service as that of the Court it is substituting. There must, therefore, be a uniform age of superannuation for all members in all the Tribunals174. The only differentiation in age of superannuation provided by the Constitution is that between judges of High Courts and Supreme Court. We find the reason for the same in the intention of the Constituent Assembly which aimed to incorporate the experience and knowledge of a High Court Judge when elevated as a Supreme Court judge. Hence, to utilise the experience and knowledge acquired during tenure as a judge of High Court, Supreme Court judges are provided with higher age of superannuation than the judges of High Court. Similarly, the difference between age of superannuation of Chairman/Presiding Officer and Member of a Tribunal is because Chairman/Presiding Officer is not a promotional post and thus cannot be equated with that of the Member. The post of Chairman/Presiding Officer requires judicial and administrative experience of at least that of the judge of a High Court which is evident from the statutes prescribing them175. Another oddity which was brought to our notice is that there has been an imposition of a short tenure of three years for the members of the Tribunals as enumerated in the Schedule of Tribunals Rules, 2017. A short tenure, coupled with provision of routine suspensions pending enquiry and lack of immunity thereof increases the influence and control of the Executive over Members of Tribunals, thus adversely affecting the impartiality of the Tribunals. Furthermore, prescribing such short tenures precludes cultivation of adjudicatory experience and is thus injurious to the efficacy of Tribunals176. This Court criticised the imposition of short tenures of members of Tribunals in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association, (2010) (supra) and a longer tenure was recommended. It was observed that short tenures also discourage meritorious members of Bar to sacrifice their flourishing practice to join a Tribunal as a Member for a short tenure of merely three years. The tenure of Members of Tribunals as prescribed under the Schedule of the Rules is anti-merit and attempts to create equality between unequals. A tenure of three years may be suitable for a retired Judge of High Court or the Supreme Court or even in case of a judicial officer on deputation. However, it will be illusory to expect a practising advocate to forego his well-established practice to serve as a Member of a Tribunal for a period of three years. The legislature intended to incorporate uniformity in the administration of Tribunal by virtue of Section 184 of Finance Act, 2017. Nevertheless, such uniformity cannot be attained at the cost of discouraging meritorious candidates from being appointed as Members of Tribunals177. Additionally, the discretion accorded to the Central or State Government to reappoint members after retirement from one Tribunal to another discourages public faith in justice dispensation system which is akin to loss of one of the key limbs of the sovereign. Additionally, the short tenure of Members also increases interference by the Executive jeopardising the independence of judiciary178. In the light of the discussion as aforesaid, we hold that the Rules would require a second look since the extremely short tenure of the Members of Tribunals is anti-merit and has the effect of discouraging meritorious candidates to accept posts of Judicial Members in Tribunals(E) Contradictions in the Rules179. On the contentions of parties and in the light of the aforementioned discussion, the Bench has observed following contradictions in the(a) There is an inconsistency within the Rules with regard to the tenure prescribed for the Members of Tribunals insofar as a fixed tenure of three years for both direct appointments from the Bar and appointment of retired judicial officers or judges of High Court or Supreme Court. It is also discriminatory to the extent that it attempts to create equality between unequal classes. The tenure of Members, Vice-Chairman, Chairman, etc. must be increased with due consideration to the prior decisions of the Court(b) The difference in the age of superannuation of the Members, Vice- Chairmen and Chairmen, as formulated in the Rules is contrary to the objectives of the Finance Act, 2017 viz., to attain uniformity in the composition of the Tribunal framework. There should be a uniform age of superannuation for Members, Vice-Chairmen, Chairmen, etc. in all Tribunals(c) Rule 4(2) of the Rules providing that the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry or Department under which the Tribunal is constituted shall be the convener of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, is in direct violation of the doctrine of Separation of Powers and thus contravenes the basic structure of the Constitution. Corollary to the dictum of this Court in the Fourth Judges Case, judicial dominance in appointment of members of judiciary cannot be diluted by the Executive(d) Rule 7 accords unwarranted discretion to the Central Government insofar as it merely directs and not mandates the Central Government to consider the recommendation of Committee for removal of a Member of a Tribunal. The Central Government shall mandatorily consider the recommendation of the Committee before removal of any Member of Tribunal. Furthermore, the proviso to Rule 7 creates an unjust classification between National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and other fora inasmuch as the removal of Chairperson or member of NCLAT alone is to be in consultation with the Chief Justice of India(e) Moral turpitude is a term well defined by this Court in numerous decisions. Rule 7(b) cannot be allowed to survive as it allows the Executive to interpret the meaning of moral turpitude, which is an encroachment on the judicial domain(f) The power of relaxation of rules with respect to any class of persons shall be vested with the Search-cum-Selection Committee and not with the Central Government as provided under Rule 20. As ruled by this Court earlier in Madras Bar Association (2014) (supra), the Central Government cannot be allowed to have administrative control over the Judiciary without subverting the doctrine of separation of powers183. This Court had earlier noted the statements of the Ld. Attorney General vide order dated 27 March 2019 in W.P. (C) No. 267/2012, wherein it was submitted that the Ministry of Law is already overburdened and cannot effectively perform the supervisory function, as a single nodal Ministry, for all the Tribunals, as was earlier suggested by this Court184. What appears to be of paramount importance is that every Tribunal must enjoy adequate financial independence for the purpose of its day to day functioning including the expenditure to be incurred on (a) recruitment of staff; (b) creation of infrastructure; (c) modernisation of infrastructure; (d) computerisation; (e) perquisites and other facilities admissible to the Presiding Authority or the Members of such Tribunal. It may not be very crucial as to which Ministry or Department performs the duties of Nodal Agency for a Tribunal, but what is of utmost importance is that the Tribunal should not be expected to look towards such Nodal Agency for its day to day requirements. There must be a direction to allocate adequate and sufficient funds for each Tribunal to make it self-sufficient and self- sustainable authority for all intents and purposes. The expenditure to be incurred on the functioning of each Tribunal has to be necessarily a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, hitherto, the Ministry of Finance shall, in consultation with the Nodal Ministry/Department, shall earmark separate and dedicated funds for the Tribunals. It will not only ensure that the Tribunals are not under the financial control of the Department, who is a litigant before them, but it may also enhance the public faith and trust in the mechanism of Tribunals185. It was brought to our notice by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) that there is an imminent need for conducting a Judicial Impact Assessment of all the Tribunals referable to the Finance Act, 2017. It was argued that neither the Legislature nor the Executive had conducted any assessment to analyse the adverse repercussions of the changes brought in the framework of Tribunals in India, if any, by the legislative exercises carried out from time to time186. The contentions of the petitioner(s) cannot be said to be unfounded. The three limbs of the State viz., the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary are so intertwined that there is a direct impact of the action of one limb on another. Every legislation results in an immediate increase in the number of pending litigations. It is the responsibility of the other branches of the State to be conscious of the limitations of the Judiciary in keeping pace with increasing pendency of litigation. Care has to be taken to ensure that while enhancing the efficacy of legislations the accrual of resultant litigation is minimal188. In the present case, we are of the view that the legislature has not conformed to the opinion of this Court with respect to Judicial Impact Assessment and thus, has not made any attempt to assess the ramifications of the Finance Act, 2017. It can be legitimately expected that the multifarious amendments in relation to merger and reorganisation of Tribunals may result in massive increase in litigation which, in absence of adequate infrastructure, or budgetary grants, will overburden the Judiciary189. In the fitness of things, we deem it appropriate to direct the Union of India to carry out financial impact assessment in respect of all the Tribunals referable to Sections 158 to 182 of the Finance Act, 2017 and undertake an exercise to assess the need based requirements and make available sufficient resources for each Tribunal established by the Parliament190. A concerning trend has been brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned Counsels. The Union has, in addition to equal pay and perks, accorded status equivalent to that of Supreme Court and High Court judges to Chairmen/Presidents of various Tribunals and authorities191. It is apposite to refer to the Warrant of Precedence which delineates the sequential hierarchy of functionaries which is used most often for formal ceremonial arrangements. Such enhancement of the status of certain officials is sans any rationale and falls squarely outside the Constitutional scheme. Although seemingly pedantic, according status equivalent or higher than Constitutional functionaries by executive order or by legislation strikes at the essence of the Constitutional dignity and stature accorded to such authorities. The absurdity of the situation can be demonstrated clearly if tomorrow a bureaucrat is accorded higher status than that of a Minister, who is the head of his department. Such designations do not have a personal value but rather represent the framework and structure of governance envisaged. Illogical changes or altercations hence disturbs the fabric of hierarchy and discipline necessary for the effective functioning of the State193. In light of the unequivocal assertions of a co-ordinate bench of this Court, there can be no doubt that executive action cannot confer status equivalent to that of either Supreme Court or High Court judges on any member or head of any Tribunal or other judicial fora194. Furthermore, that even though manned by retired judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court, such Tribunals established under Article 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution cannot seek equivalence with High Courts or the Supreme Court. Once a judge of a High Court or Supreme Court has retired and he/she no longer enjoys the Constitutional status, the statutory position occupied by him/her cannot be equated with the previous position as a High Court or a Supreme Court judge. The rank, dignity and position of Constitutional judges is hence sui generis and arise not merely by their position in the Warrant of Precedence or the salary and perquisites they draw, but as a result of the Constitutional trust accorded in them. Indiscriminate accordance of status of such Constitutional judges on Tribunal members and presiding officers will do violence to the very Constitutional Scheme Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Why Stultify Judges Status?, (2002) 2 LW (JS) 85 (June, 2000)196. We would further point out that the Warrant of Precedence is a mere self- serving executive decision and not a law in itself. It is a reflection of the inter-se hierarchy amongst functionaries for the purposes of discharge of important ceremonial functions and other State duties. It cannot either confer rights or alter the status accorded by law. It would further be clearly abhorrent to use such an instrument to undermine the order of precedence clearly accorded under the Constitution197. It is hence essential that the Union of India, takes note of the observations of this Court herein and abide by the spirit of the Constitution in respecting the aforementioned difference between constitutional functionaries and statutory authorities. It is important for the Union of India to ensure that judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court are kept on a separate pedestal distanced from any other Tribunal or quasi-judicial Authority219. The seven-judge Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) considered at great length the permissibility of altering the power of judicial review exercisable by High Courts under Article 226. It authoritatively held that all orders passed by Tribunals which have been established under Article 323A or 323B of the Constitution, shall be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts. This Court, however, in an attempt to respect the intent of facilitating speedy disposal expressed by the Parliament, directed that such orders of the Central Administrative Tribunals be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court if challenged under Article 226. This Court, thus, held:-91. It has also been contended before us that even in dealing with cases which are properly before the Tribunals, the manner in which justice is dispensed by them leaves much to be desired. Moreover, the remedy provided in the parent statutes, by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, is too costly and inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Furthermore, the result of providing such a remedy is that the docket of the Supreme Court is crowded with decisions of Tribunals that are challenged on relatively trivial grounds and it is forced to perform the role of a first appellate court. We have already emphasised the necessity for ensuring that the High Courts are able to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of the Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution. In R.K. Jain case [(1993) 4 SCC 119  : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128 : (1993) 25 ATC 464] , after taking note of these facts, it was suggested that the possibility of an appeal from the Tribunal on questions of law to a Division Bench of a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, be pursued. It appears that no follow-up action has been taken pursuant to the suggestion. Such a measure would have improved matters considerably. Having regard to both the aforestated contentions, we hold that all decisions of Tribunals, whether created pursuant to Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution, will be subject to the High Courts writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls220. It is hence clear post L Chandrakumar (supra) that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not limit the powers of High Courts expressly or by implication against military or armed forces disputes. The limited ouster made by Article 227(4) only operates qua administrative supervision by the High Court and not judicial review. Article 136(2) prohibits direct appeals before the Supreme Court from an order of armed forces tribunals, but would not prohibit an appeal to the Supreme Court against the judicial review exercised by the High Court under Article 226221. However, it is essential that High Courts use such powers of judicial review restrictively and on limited grounds, similar to the concept of regulatory deference which has evolved in the United States. Such a need was also noted by a nine- judge bench in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536  which held that:… While the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226—and of this Court under Article 32—cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of the said enactments, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the said Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. The writ petition will be considered and disposed of in the light of and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-B. This is for the reason thatthe power under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the rule of law and not for abrogating it222. The jurisdiction under Article 226, being part of the basic structure, can neither be tampered with nor diluted. Instead, it has to be zealously-protected and cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, even if it be formulated for expeditious disposal and early finality of disputes. Further, High Courts are conscious enough to understand that such power must be exercised sparingly by them to ensure that they do not become alternate forums of appeal. A five-judge bench in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal(1955) 2 SCR 1 whilst reiterating that jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be ousted, laid down certain guidelines for exercise of such power:13. The jurisdiction which Articles 226 and 136 confer entitles the High Courts and this Court to examine the decisions of all tribunals to see whether they have acted illegally. That jurisdiction cannot be taken away by a legislative device that purports to confer power on a tribunal to act illegally by enacting a statute that its illegal acts shall become legal the moment the tribunal chooses to say they are legal. The legality of an act or conclusion is something that exists outside and apart from the decision of an inferior tribunal. It is a part of the law of the land which cannot be finally determined or altered by any tribunal of limited jurisdiction. The High Courts and the Supreme Court alone can determine what the law of the land is vis-a-vis all other courts and tribunals and they alone can pronounce with authority and finality on what is legal and what is not. All that an inferior tribunal can do is to reach a tentative conclusion which is subject to review under Articles 226 and 136. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 with that of the Supreme Court above them remains to its fullest extent despite Section 105223. It is apparent that the Legislature has not been provided with desired assistance so that it may rectify the anomalies which arise from provisions of direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Considering that such direct appeals have become serious impediments in the discharge of Constitutional functions by this Court and also affects access to justice for citizens, it is high time that the Union of India, in consultation with either the Law Commission or any other expert body, revisit such provisions under various enactments providing for direct appeals to the Supreme Court against orders of Tribunals, and instead provide appeals to Division Benches of High Courts, if at all necessary. Doing so would have myriad benefits. In addition to increasing affordability of justice and more effective Constitutional adjudication by this Court, it would also provide an avenue for High Court Judges to keep face with contemporaneous evolutions in law, and hence enrich them with adequate experience before they come to this Court. We direct that the Union undertake such an exercise expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months at the maximum, and place the findings before Parliament for appropriate action as may be deemed fit224. While seeking a Judicial Impact Assessment of all existing Tribunals, counsels for petitioners/appellant(s) have underscored the exorbitant pendency before of a number of Tribunals like the CESTAT and ITAT, which they claim affects the very objective of tribunalisation. On the other hand, they also highlight an incongruity wherein numerous Tribunals are hardly seized of any matters, and are exclusively situated in one location225. As noted by this court on numerous occasions, including in Madras Bar Association (2014) (supra), although it is the prerogative of the Legislature to set up alternate avenues for dispute resolution to supplement the functioning of existing Courts, it is essential that such mechanisms are equally effective, competent and accessible. Given that jurisdiction of High Courts and District Courts is affected by the constitution of Tribunals, it is necessary that benches of the Tribunals be established across the country. However, owing to the small number of cases, many of these Tribunals do not have the critical mass of cases required for setting up of multiple benches. On the other hand, it is evident that other Tribunals are pressed for resources and personnel226. This imbalance in distribution of case-load and inconsistencies in nature, location and functioning of Tribunals require urgent attention. It is essential that after conducting a Judicial Impact Assessment as directed earlier, such niche Tribunals be amalgamated with others dealing with similar areas of law, to ensure effective utilisation of resources and to facilitate access to justice.