MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 25-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 10 S.C.R. 1 
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Transferred Case (C) No. 150 of 2006) 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 
[R.M. LODHA, CJI., JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 
CHELAMESWAR, A.K. SIKRI AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005: 
A 
B 
History of promulgation of NTT Act - Discussed. 
C 
Whether High Courts which discharge judicial functions, 
can be substituted by an extra-judicial body such as NTT and 
whether the NTT in the manner of its constitution undermines 
a process of independence and fairness, which are sine qua 
non of an adjudicatory authority - Held: It was impermissible D 
for the legislature to abrogate/divest the core judicial appellate 
functions traditionally vested with the High Court, and to confer! 
vest the same, with an independent quasi-judicial authority, 
which did not even have the basic ingredients of a superior 
Court, like the High Court (whose jurisdiction is sought to be E 
transferred) - Jurisdiction vested in the High Courts u!Articles 
226 and 227 of the Constitution, is not only in respect of the 
rightful implementation of statutory provisions, but also of 
supervisory jurisdiction, over courts and tribunals and cannot 
be curtailed under any circumstances. 
F 
Whether while transferring jurisdiction to a newly created 
court/tribunal, it is essential to maintain the standards and the 
stature of the court replaced - Held: Parliament was not 
precluded from establishing a court under a new name, to 
exercise the jurisdiction that was being exercised by members G 
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 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS, 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A be entitled to the same security of tenure, as the holder of the 
judicial office, at the time when the constitution came into force 
- High Court. 
Whether the transfer of adjudicatory functions vested in 
the High Court to the NTT violates recognized constitutional 
B 
conventions - Held: Recognized constitutional conventions 
pertaining to the Westminster model, do not debar the 
legislating authority from enacting legislation to vest 
adjudicatory functions, earlier vested in a superior court, with 
an alternative court/tribunal - Exercise of such power by the 
C Parliament would per se not violate any constitutional 
convention. 
s.5 - Validity of- Clause that NTT would ordinarily have 
its sittings in the National Capital Territory of Delhi - Role of 
the Central Government in determining the sitting of benches 
D of the NTT - Held: It is not appropriate to allow the Central 
Government to play any role, with reference to the places 
where the benches would be set up, the areas over which the 
benches would exercise jurisdiction, the composition and the 
constitution of the benches, as also, the transfer of the 
E 
Members from one bench to another - Sub-sections (2), (3), 
(4) and (5) of s.5 are unconstitutional. 
s. 6 -- Validity of- Clause that a person would be qualified 
for appointment as a Member, if he is or has been a Member 
of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or of the Customs, 
F 
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for at least 5 years 
- Held: Only a person possessing professional qualification 
in law, with substantial experience in the practice of law, will 
be in a position to handle the onerous responsibilities which 
a Chairperson and Members of the NTT will have to shoulder 
G - Accountant Members and Technical Members cannot said 
to have the stature and qualification possessed by judges of 
High Courts - s. 7 is declared unconstitutional. 
s. 7 - Validity of - Appointment of Chairperson and other 
Members by Central Governf'Ylent - Held: NTT has been 
H constituted as a replacement of High Courts -
The manner 
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA 
3 
of appointment of Chairperson/Members to the NTT will have 
A 
to be by the same procedure (or by a similar procedure) to 
that which is prevalent for appointment of judges of High 
Courts - s. 7 cannot be considered to be constitutionally valid, 
since it involves participation of Secretaries of Departments 
of the Central Government in the process of selection and s 
appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the NTT -
s. 7 is declared as unconstitutional. 
s. 8 - Validity of - Appointment of Chairper

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.