New Delhi: If the Center finds any substantive material against a candidate who has been recommended for appointment to a quasi-judicial tribunal, his name is cleared by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), whose name is It is presided over by a serving judge of the Supreme Court. , then the former will have to place the file with the objections before the panel, the top court has ordered.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha devised the mechanism last week when it was pointed out that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) had approved only 22 out of 41 names approved by the SCSC on September 21, 2019 to fill up the vacancies. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which deals with disputes arising out of Income Tax (IT) assessment.
According to government documents produced before the court and submissions made by Attorney General KK Venugopal, the ACC had received additional inputs from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) regarding the credentials of the candidates cleared by the SCSC. Since the inputs were objectionable, the ACC decided not to go ahead with the appointments.
Some of the reasons for the ACC to proceed with the names were read out in open court by the judges. One of them was about a lawyer who “did not prepare his brief well” due to which he was warned several times by the court. Another pertains to a lawyer who was reportedly not honest with his brief as he “did not properly defend the department (government) in the court”.
In the case of some lawyers, the objection was that penal proceedings were initiated against them by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
The court was told that this is an exercise done under section 270A of the IT Act. It is an automatic initiation of penalty proceedings where the assessed income exceeds the reported income.
Rejecting this practice of keeping the SCSC’s recommendations on hold, citing fresh inputs about candidates, the Bench ordered on May 17 that if new material comes to the fore regarding the suggested names, it shall be referred to the panel. should be shared with. It said that non-compliance of this procedure would be a deviation from the fair process.
The bench was surprised that government documents were silent about “multi-sources” who had provided additional inputs.
When asked who did the exercise of checking after the names were cleared by the SCSC, Venugopal replied that it was done by the PMO.
The senior-most law officer refused to disclose the “multi-sources” from where the information was collected, saying it would embarrass the concerned candidates and the bar association where they are registered.
The bench strongly opposed this and reminded Venugopal that the SCSC set up to nominate members of various tribunals is headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge and comprises government officials of the rank of secretary. Further, it states that SCSCs are selected only after getting inputs from the Intelligence Bureau (IB).
“Look at the arbitrariness of all this. We have a judge, IAS officer as part of the committee (SCSC),” Justice Chandrachud said. “The list of those who have applied to become members (in the tribunal) comes to us with inputs from the IB. Supposing there is something about the candidates that comes to light later, there must be some way to inform the IB and the committee about it. ,
‘Give additional information to SCSC in a week’
The court’s order came on a contempt petition filed by a Bengaluru-based advocates’ association, which contended that the legal affairs wing had violated the SC guidelines issued in the Madras Bar Association case by not appointing members in the ITAT.
The current exercise for ITAT appointments began on 6 July 2018, with advertisements notifying 37 vacancies (21 Judicial and 16 Accountant members).
As per the law governing the appointment and functioning of tribunals, lawyers are eligible to apply as judicial members, while experts in the field can apply as accountants or executive members. Applications from eligible candidates – along with IB inputs on their background and integrity – are forwarded to SCSC.
Each tribunal has a separate SCSC and in the case of ITAT, its SCSC is headed by Supreme Court judge Justice AM Khanwilkar.
Records presented before the SC say that ITAT SCSC submitted its recommendations on 21 September 2019, and recommended 41 people for appointment as members of ITAT. Of these, 28 (16 as Judicial and 12 as Accountant Member) were on the confirmation list and 13 on the waiting list.
On 11 September 2021 the ACC approved 13 more names on 1 October 2021.
It was not appropriate to appoint anyone from the waiting list without eliminating the main list, the matter was informed by the petitioners to the apex court.
But Venugopal defended the practice and argued that the appointment of candidates was valid, as the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 requires SCSC to recommend two names per post. Hence, names from the waiting list could have been considered.
But the AG agreed with the concern of the bench that any information subsequently collected against any candidate should be updated to the SCSC.
Referring to the penal proceedings of the CBDT, the bench in its order said: “It must be emphasized that the SCSC, headed by a Supreme Court Judge, also comprises two Secretaries to the Central Government. An extensive exercise was conducted by the Committee. which includes seeking inputs of IB. All inputs should be placed with SCSC in advance. In exceptional circumstances, where subsequent material comes to the fore after recommendations, those materials should also be placed before SCSC .
It said: “While the candidates recommended by the SCSC are those who have been approved by the IB after a detailed analysis of their credentials, integrity and other relevant characteristics, obviously, many of the comments which are contained in the Feedback Column. are subjective in nature without disclosure. This would detract substantially from the objectivity of the process.”
With regard to the names of ITATs, the bench said that the government should provide additional information to the SCSC within a week.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Read also: India has had a long debate on sedition, but it won’t do without changes in the justice system