Attorney General R. Venkataramani strongly rebutted CJI Gavai accusation Modi government of cunning tactics

 

  Supreme Court Hearing of Tribunal Reform Act 2021

---

• Context and Opening Remarks
  There was tense atmosphere in the Supreme Court during the hearing on the validity of the Tribunal Reform Act 2021. Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai accused the Modi government of cunning tactics to avoid this bench and misusing constitutional processes. Attorney General R. Venkataramani strongly rebutted, stating the government is legitimately exercising constitutional powers, not engaging in any trickery. Question is whether CJI Gavai is acting on a government-opposition agenda rather than impartial justice. The background and courtroom drama, along with CJI Gavai’s perceived anti-government stance, are introduced for detailed analysis.

---

• Background of the Tribunal Reform Act 2021
  The Tribunal Reform Act 2021 was a significant initiative by the Indian government aimed at strengthening, streamlining, and making the country’s tribunal system more efficient and transparent. Prior to the Act, multiple tribunals such as:

  Tribunal Name	Issues Faced
  Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)	Delays, corruption, overlapping jurisdiction
  Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)	Delays, corruption, overlapping jurisdiction
  National Green Tribunal (NGT)	Delays, corruption, overlapping jurisdiction
  Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)	Delays, corruption, overlapping jurisdiction

  In 2019, the Supreme Court expressed concern in R.C. Madan Gopal vs Union of India over the tribunals’ condition, emphasizing the need for stronger tribunals with independence. The Modi government introduced the Tribunal Reform Act in 2021 to address these concerns.

  However, opposition parties such as the Congress and Trinamool Congress challenged the Act in the Supreme Court, alleging it violates constitutional Articles 323A and 323B by undermining tribunal independence.

---

• Court Hearing and Key Arguments
  The hearing has been ongoing since 2022. In 2025, a new development occurred when the government proposed minor amendments to increase tribunal benches and mandate digital hearings.

  On 5 November 2025, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench led by CJI Gavai conducted the hearing. Petitioners argued that the Act enhances executive dominance over tribunals, which CJI Gavai seemed to agree with, suggesting increased executive control would benefit the ruling party.

  Attorney General Venkataramani defended the Act as a reform, not interference, emphasizing the executive’s constitutional role. CJI Gavai interrupted, accusing the government of trying to dodge this bench and using amendments to delay the hearing, calling it disrespectful to constitutional processes.

  Venkataramani retorted firmly:

  • The government is exercising legitimate constitutional powers under Articles 53 and 73.
  • This is a lawful use of executive authority, not trickery.
  • If the court finds any fault, it should rule accordingly rather than level accusations.

  This response silenced the courtroom for a moment. CJI Gavai’s tone softened slightly, and the hearing was adjourned until 20 November 2025.

---

• Analysis of the Conflict and Criticism of CJI Gavai
  It was shocking of CJI Gavai’s behavior, labeling it as government-oppositional bias rather than judicial impartiality. Key points include:

  • Fact Ignorance: Data shows pendency of tribunal cases decreased by 25%, appointments increased by 40% in 2024, contradicting Gavai’s accusations.
  • Selective Criticism: The judiciary was silent during corruption-ridden tribunals under the Congress government (2004-2014) but now attacks the Modi government’s reforms.
  • Pattern of Opposition: Since becoming CJI in May 2025, Gavai has challenged government policies like electoral bonds and CAA, seemingly benefiting opposition parties.
  • Judicial Decorum: Public reprimand of the Attorney General by the CJI is seen as damaging to the dignity of the Supreme Court. Critics argue Gavai should decide on the law, not engage in political rhetoric aligned with opposition narratives.

  Rahul Gandhi’s posted on X supporting CJI Gavai is highlighted, implying Gavai may have become the Congress party’s de facto “B team.”

---

• Government’s Firm Stance and Venkataramani’s Defiance
  The Modi government, through Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, reaffirmed its commitment to reforms and respect for court decisions, urging against bias. The government asserts that tribunal reforms have positively impacted over 100,000 cases in 2025 alone, emphasizing that reforms will continue despite judicial opposition.

  Attorney General Venkataramani’s sharp rebuttal to CJI Gavai has become emblematic of the government’s firm stance. The video highlights that despite nearing retirement, CJI Gavai continues to publicly challenge the government, seemingly to maintain limelight and promote an anti-Modi/Yogi narrative.

---

• The Constitutional Debate over Powers and Courtroom Dynamics
  In the final segment, the video analyses the constitutional and procedural aspects of the dispute:

  • Venkataramani argues that if the government genuinely wants to avoid this bench, but is doing so within constitutional provisions, there is no issue.
  • The government’s use of constitutional powers is lawful and open to judicial review.
  • The Attorney General challenges Gavai to issue a decision if he disagrees rather than making political statements.
  • The controversy reflects a broader trend where judges face less scrutiny for political remarks against the government, but the government responds firmly.
  • The video suggests that the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is at stake if personal or political biases overshadow constitutional interpretations.

Key Insights and Conclusions

• Tribunal Reform Act 2021: Aimed at improving tribunal efficiency, transparency, and reducing case backlogs, backed by quantitative improvements in case disposal and appointments.
• Constitutional Challenge: Opposition claims the Act undermines tribunal independence under Articles 323A and 323B; government defends it as legitimate constitutional exercise under Articles 53 and 73.
• Supreme Court Hearing: Marked by confrontation between CJI B.R. Gavai and Attorney General Venkataramani, with accusations of government evasion and government’s denial of such tactics.
• Judicial Impartiality Questioned: During hearing CJI Gavai displays an anti-government bias, influencing court proceedings and public perception.
• Government’s Firm Defense: The Modi administration emphasizes commitment to reform, respect for judiciary, and challenges the politicization of legal proceedings.
• Impact on Judiciary: Public courtroom rebukes and political rhetoric risk damaging the Supreme Court’s perceived neutrality and dignity.
• Jai Hind