Attorney general R Venkataramani

NEW DELHI: Attorney general R Venkataramani apologised on Friday to Supreme Court following CJI B R Gavai deploring the Centre’s plea for referring to a five-judge bench midway through hearing on challenges to the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act and two days later excoriating a request for adjourning a scheduled hearing. Venkataramani appeared before the bench through video conference and said, “I am tendering a volley of apologies for inconveniencing the court. I will appear before the bench in person on Monday and present my submissions on the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act.” The AG said, “I will explain why the government has taken a particular stand. However, the concerns raised by the petitioners who have challenged the validity of certain provisions can be taken into consideration and, if possible, ironing out of creases can be done. The Supreme Court can tell us the creases…”

The bench of the CJI and Justice K Vinod Chandran said on Thursday itself it had told additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati that it would accommodate Attorney general R Venkataramani’s request for absence on Friday and that he could present his arguments on Monday. “But, on Monday either you (the AG) leave international arbitration or entrust Bhati to argue the case,” the chief justice said, clarifying that no further request for adjournment would be entertained. The tribunal reforms law prescribes uniform tenures of four years for the members and chairpersons of various tribunals, including NCLT, NCLAT, CAT, CESTAT, APTEL, TDSAT, ITAT, and DRT. One of the major grievances of the petitioners, as articulated by senior advocate Arvind Datar, was that because of the short tenure of appointments, the tribunals which discharge important adjudicatory functions do not attract youngsters and only retired persons apply for the posts. He said the promise of renewal of tenure would destroy the independence of tribunals and pleaded that a robust independent tribunal system is needed. CJI Gavai agreed with the view and asked, “If the tribunal members and chairperson are dependent on the government for the renewal of their tenures, then would it not impinge upon the independence of judicial functions of the tribunals?”