Form of words:
New Delhi: The government has no regard for Supreme Court decisions and is testing the court’s patience, the apex court observed on Monday, as it questioned the Center over delayed appointments in various tribunals, which are reeling from a severe vacancy crisis. are battling.
A special bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices DY Chandrachud and LN Rao said, “You are diluting the tribunals by not appointing any members.” The bench warned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that it would initiate contempt proceedings if the appointments were not made within a week.
The top court also criticized the government for enacting a new law on appointments in tribunals – Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2021 – Which is in contrast to the two earlier decisions. The law was notified after both the Houses of Parliament on 13 August Has agreed to This. While the first judgment of the top court regarding the bill was co-authored by Justice Chandrachud in November 2019, Justice Rao headed the bench which delivered the second judgment on it in November 2020.
“It (the law) is a replica of the provisions set aside by this court. Parliament can take away the basis of a decision through a new law, but cannot make a law which is directly contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. This (Tribunal Appointment Bill) is not a valid law,” the court said.
Although the bench also made it clear that the present proceedings before it were not intended to “confront” with the Centre, CJI Raman lauded the speed with which the government recently appointed nine new judges to the Supreme Court. notified to.
“The entire legal fraternity was overjoyed. Then what’s the problem with the tribunal? Do you want to shut them down?” the bench asked.
On Mehta’s appeal, the court adjourned the matter till September 13 and did not include oral observations in its formal order on the request of the law officer.
It issued notice to the government on a petition filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, challenging the Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2021, and several petitions for constitution of a GST tribunal for appointment of members to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). Feedback was sought. ) and SEBI Appellate Tribunal (SAT).
Read also: Parliament Passes Tribunal Reforms Bill, But Here’s Why It Could Cause Supreme Court Outrage
Court gave three options
The government notifies appointments to the Tribunal on the basis of recommendations made by a search-cum-selection committee headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge, with the Law Secretary and the Secretary of the parent ministry of the Tribunal as members.
Mehta placed a letter received from the Union Finance Ministry assuring that the appointments under the new law would be notified in two weeks. However, the rules are yet to be framed, the letter said.
Mehta said that according to the release, the government would first act on the names which were cleared by the search-cum-selection committee.
However, the CJI was not impressed by this. “After seeing your letter. I feel that the government is bent on not respecting the judgments or orders passed by this court,” he said.
CJI Ramana reminded the SG that in the previous hearing on August 16, the latter had claimed that the government had cleared certain appointments. But when he was asked to give the list, the law officer could not do so.
The CJI said that due to the delay in appointments, the court was left with only three options. “We can either put a stay on the Act and direct to go on with the appointments, or close the Tribunal and delegate the powers to the HC or appoint the members themselves. And the third is that we initiate contempt proceedings,” said CJI Ramana.
He said the tribunals that were set up were doing a good job. But now they have almost collapsed due to no appointment.
Read also: Caught between bad rules and appointments, tribunals finally get much-needed judicial boost
‘The process of recommending names was a waste of energy’
The judges spoke from their experiences as the head of some of the search-cum-selection panels.
Justice Rao told SG Mehta that while adhering to the existing law, the panel had made recommendations more than one-and-a-half years ago, to which “the government could not have any objection with respect to the prepared panel and the status of the service”.
“Still, why hasn’t an appointment been made?” The judge expressed surprise that some tribunals are functioning with only one member. The judge said that while leading a bench of the judicial side, he had to extend the tenure of a member of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), otherwise the tribunal would have been closed.
As head of the panel that selects members for the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), Justice Chandrachud said that as per the memorandum of procedure (MOP), the selection committee decides on the names only after it receives inputs from the Intelligence Bureau. does. IB).
“Even though the names were approved, to which the IB had no objection, the government has either dropped them or is sitting on them. There is no clarity on why this is done. In addition, there are two senior bureaucrats as members of the panel. Does the government not have faith in the judges of this court?” Justice Chandrachud asked.
He continued: “The whole exercise of selection was a waste of energy.”
Read also: SC panel again recommends appointment of son of judge found Godhra train fire ‘accidental’
‘Imagine the burden we are facing’
With litigants filing petitions in the courts to expedite the hearing in these quasi-judicial bodies, the non-functioning of the tribunal has put additional workload on the courts.
“NCDRC is giving the dates after a year. Petitions are filed by consumers requesting us to pre-schedule their hearing. But we are helpless and cannot give any directions,” Justice Chandrachud said.
The judge emphasized that the high number of vacancies in the tribunal is also affecting the economy of the country. “NCLT and NCLAT (National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal), Both are dealing with insolvency cases) are the cornerstone of the economy. They are important for the rehabilitation of corporate entities. Important cases are not being heard due to vacancies.
As Mehta tried to assuage the court’s concern, the CJI retorted that the court would not give much importance to the new law on appointments to tribunals.
“We are not bothered about the later legislations and we will not give too much confidence. Justice Rao told me how the government did not respect our decision, despite the fact that it was given after hearing the Attorney General,” said CJI Ramana.
(Edited by Polomi Banerjee)
Read also: Why is Justice Akil Qureshi not in the Supreme Court? A little more transparency, sir
subscribe our channel youtube And Wire
Why is the news media in crisis and how can you fix it?
India needs free, unbiased, non-hyphenated and questionable journalism even more as it is facing many crises.
But the news media itself is in trouble. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism are shrinking, yielding to raw prime-time spectacle.
ThePrint has the best young journalists, columnists and editors to work for it. Smart and thinking people like you will have to pay a price to maintain this quality of journalism. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can Here.