(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.T.-Miscellaneous[The previous Rules framed by the Center under Section 184 of the Finance Act, namely the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017, were struck down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Nov 2019 in the case of Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank. The ground was that the Rules diluted judicial independence, as the Central Government had excessive say in the matter of appointment and removal of Tribunal members. The Court also found the Rules to be vague in respect of qualifications prescribed for members. The court held that the Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 did not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions as there are adequate principles to guide framing of delegated legislation, which would include the binding dictums of this Court and thus it rules out the possibility of uncertainty. The Rules formulated by the Central Government under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 being contrary to the parent enactment and the principles envisaged in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court, are hereby struck down in entirety. The Central Government was directed to re-formulate the Rules strictly in conformity and in accordance with the principles delineated by this Court. The court issued a writ of mandamus to the Ministry of Law and Justice to carry out ‘Judicial Impact Assessment’ and submit the result of the findings before the competent legislative authority. The Central Government in consultation with the Law Commission of India or any other expert body shall revisit the provisions of the statutes referable to the Finance Act, 2017 and place appropriate proposals before the Parliament for consideration of the need to remove direct appeals to the Supreme Court from orders of Tribunals. The present case is considered to be a landmark judgment to ensure the independence of the judiciary. The court has made sure the constitutional spirit is given priority and all the organs of the state function in accordance with principles like separation of power and basic structure doctrine. (https:indiankanoon.org/doc/36423291/, https:www.barandbench.com/columns/column-decoding-the-tribunal-judgment)]
