The recent developments have displayed the determination of the central government to undermine the autonomy of various tribunals in the country. It has recently got the parliament to enact tribunal reform act, which included provisions that had been struck down by the Supreme Court in an ordinance issued earlier. It released a set of appointments this week, following sharp inquiries by the Supreme Court over the unusual delay in filling vacancies among judicial and administrative members. The Court observed that the selection was made from amongst the names selected by the various selection committees. The government had entered the waiting list to exercise its choice instead of discarding the select list prepared by the panel of judges and officers. In another development, the government curtailed the tenure of Acting Chairman of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Justice AIS Cheema, by 10 days. Mr. Cheema was ready to give in some cases on which the NCLAT had reserved its judgment before retiring on September 20. The government’s justification was that it was going by its latest law, under which the acting president’s four-year term would end on September 10. And Justice M. Venugopal has already been appointed in his place. However, a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, was of the firm opinion that he should be allowed to complete his term, and even remarked that the Court should act on its own motion. Will not hesitate to stop the operation of . Fortunately, the matter was quickly resolved with the government backing down. Agreed that Justice Venugopal will be on leave till the end of Justice Cheema’s term on September 20.
The issue of the tribunal has been a source of much friction between the government and the court. They often disagree on eligibility criteria and conditions of service and a series of decisions have gone against the government. Clauses bringing changes in the conditions of service of members of various tribunals are often subject to judicial view. Courts want to ensure that a fair tenure was available for appointments, and do not allow age and experience-related criteria to be used to undermine their independence. Tribunals have always been viewed as institutions that were a notch down in independence as regular courts, even though there is widespread agreement that administrative tribunals require quicker and more focused adjudication of cases for which Expertise and domain expertise are required. As many laws now provide for such judicial bodies, the executive is interested in retaining some advantage over its members. The Supreme Court has repeatedly called for setting up a National Commission for Tribunals to make suitable appointments and to evaluate the functioning of the tribunals. If the government is dragging its feet on this, it is simply because it has a way of esotericism.
.