Court :
Supreme Court of India
Brief :
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition (C) No.804 of 2020, (dated November 27, 2020)] upheld the validity of Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020, ("Tribunal 2020 Rules") with some modifications and ordered constitution of National Tribunals Commission to supervise the appointments to and functioning of tribunals.
Citation :
Writ Petition (C) No.804 of 2020, (dated November 27, 2020)]
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Madras Bar
Association v. Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition (C) No.804 of 2020, (dated
November 27, 2020)] upheld the validity of Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and
other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of
Members) Rules, 2020, ("Tribunal 2020 Rules") with some
modifications and ordered constitution of National Tribunals Commission to
supervise the appointments to and functioning of tribunals.
Madras Bar Association ("Petitioner") has filed this Writ
Petition raising following issues that the Tribunal 2020 Rules are
unconstitutional as:
a)
The Search-cum-Selection Committees
provided for in the Tribunal 2020 Rules did not conform to the principles of
judicial dominance;
b)
Appointment of persons without
judicial experience to the posts of Judicial Members/ Presiding Officer/
Chairpersons is in contravention to the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court;
c) The term of office of the Members for four years is contrary to the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme;
d)
Advocates are not being made eligible
for appointment to most of the Tribunals;
e)
Administrative control of the
executive in matters relating to appointments and conditions of service is
violative of the principles of separation of powers and independence of
judiciary and demonstrates non-application of mind.
The Constitutional validity of provisions under Tribunal
2020 Rules concerning the selection, appointment, tenure, conditions of service,
and ancillary matters relating to various tribunals, which act in aid of the
judicial branch.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Writ Petition (C)
No.804 of 2020 held as under:
•
That, this judgment is to be read as
a sequel, and together with the decision of the Constitution Bench in Rojer
Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited [Civil Appeal No. 8588 of 2019,
(datedNovember 13, 2019)]
•
Stated that, to ensure that the
Tribunals should not function as another department under the control of the
executive, repeated directions have been issued which have gone unheeded forcing
the Petitioner to approach the Court time and again. It is high time that the
Court put an end to such practice as rules framed are completely contrary to the
directions issued by the Court. Further, to stop the dependence of the Tribunals
on their parent Departments for routing their requirements and to ensure speedy
administrative decision making. As an interregnum measure, directed constitution
of a separate 'Tribunals Wing' under the Ministry of Finance, to take up, deal
with and finalize requirements of all the Tribunals till the National Tribunals
Commission is established.
•
Observed that, it is crucial that
Tribunals are run by a robust mix of experts. The functioning or non-functioning
of any of these tribunals due to lack of competence or understanding has a
direct adverse impact on those who expect effective and swift justice from them.
These Tribunals do not function in isolation but are a part of the larger scheme
of justice dispensation envisioned by the Constitution and have to function
independently, and effectively, to live up to their mandate.
•
Held that, the Union of India shall
constitute a National Tribunals Commission which shall act as an independent
body to supervise the appointments and functioning of Tribunals, as well as to
conduct disciplinary proceedings against members of Tribunals and to take care
of administrative and infrastructural needs of the Tribunals, in an appropriate
manner.
•
The composition of
Search-cum-Selection Committees provided for in Column (4) of the Schedule to
the Tribunal 2020 Rules will stand changed and it will now comprise the
following members:
a)
The Chief Justice of India or his
nominee—Chairperson (with a casting vote).
b)
The outgoing Chairman or Chairperson
or President of the Tribunal in case of appointment of the Chairman or
Chairperson or President of the Tribunal (or) the sitting Chairman or
Chairperson or President of the Tribunal in case of appointment of other members
of the Tribunal (or) a retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or a
retired Chief Justice of Hon'ble High Court in case the Chairman or Chairperson
or President of the Tribunal is not a Judicial member or if the Chairman or
Chairperson or President of the Tribunal is seeking re-appointment—member;
c)
Secretary to the Ministry of Law and
Justice, Government of India—member;
d)
Secretary to the Government of India
from a department other than the parent or sponsoring department, nominated by
the Cabinet Secretary—member;
e)
Secretary to the sponsoring or parent
Ministry or Department—Member Secretary/Convener (without a vote).
•
Rule 4(2) of the Tribunal 2020
Rules shall be amended to provide that the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall
recommend the name of one person for appointment to each post instead of a panel
of two or three persons for appointment to each post. Another name may be
recommended to be included in the waiting list.
•
With respect to matters of
disciplinary action, the recommendations made by Search and Selection committee
shall be final.
•
Opines that the term of 4 years as
envisaged in Rule 9(1) and (2) of the Tribunal 2020 Rules has "No rationale
except that four years is more than three years prescribed in the 2017 Rules".
Thus, directs the modification of the tenure in Rules 9(1) and 9(2) of the
Tribunal 2020 Rules as five years in respect of Chairman or Chairperson, Vice
Chairman or Vice-Chairperson and the members.
•
Accepts Amicus Curiae's submission
that under the Tribunal 2020 Rules, the Vice Chairman, Vice-Chairperson or
Vice-President or members in almost all the Tribunals will have only a short
tenure of less than three years if the maximum age is 65 years.
•
Accordingly, directs the Government
to amend Rule 9 (1) of the Tribunal 2020 Rules by making the term of Chairman,
Chairperson or President as five years or till they attain 70 years, whichever
is earlier and other members dealt with in Rule 9(2) as five years or till they
attain 67 years, whichever is earlier.
•
States that the Union of India shall
make serious efforts to provide suitable housing to the Chairman or Chairperson
or President and other members of the Tribunals.
•
Directs that if providing housing is
not possible, the central government shall increase the house rent allowance
from Rs.75,000/- to Rs. 1,25,000/- for members of the tribunal and to Rs.
1,50,000/- for President & Vice-President w.e.f. January 1, 2021
•
The Tribunal 2020 Rules shall
be amended to make advocates with an experience of at least 10 years eligible
for appointment as judicial members in the Tribunals. While considering
advocates for appointment as judicial members in the Tribunals, the
Search-cum-Selection Committee shall take into account the experience of the
Advocate at the bar and their specialization in the relevant branches of law.
They shall be entitled for reappointment for at least one term by giving
preference to the service rendered by them for the Tribunals.
•
Allowed appointment of member of
Indian Legal Service as judicial members of the tribunals. Opines, "wherever
legal expertise in the particular domain is implicated, it would be natural that
advocates with experience in the same, or ancillary field would provide the
"catchment" for consideration for membership. This is also the case with
selection of technical members, who would have expertise in the scientific or
technical, or wherever required, policy background."
•
SC differs from its prior ruling in
Union of India v. Madras Bar Association [(2007) 76 SCL 350 SC] as it did
consider the experience of members of Indian Legal Service at the bar and the
Indian Legal Service was considered along with the other civil services for the
purpose of holding that the members of Indian Legal Service are entitled to be
appointed only as technical members.
•
Appointments to tribunals shall be
made within 3 months from the date on which the Search-cum-Selection Committee
completes the selection process and recommendations are made by the search
committee.
•
The Tribunal 2020 Rules shall
have prospective effect and will be applicable only from February 12, 2020.
•
Appointments made prior to 2017 Rules
and appointments made during pendency of Rojer Mathewjudgment shall be governed
by respective statutes.
•
Appointments made under the Tribunal
2020 Rules till the date of this judgment, shall not be considered
invalid, insofar as they conformed to the recommendations of the
Search-cum-Selection Committees in terms of the Tribunal 2020
Rules. Such appointments are upheld and shall not be called into question on the
ground that the Search-cum-Selection Committees which recommended the
appointment of Chairman, Chairperson, President or other members were in terms
of the Tribunal 2020 Rules, as they stood before the modifications
directed in this judgment.
•
Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons and
members of tribunals appointed prior to February 12, 2020 shall be governed by
parent statute and rules as per which they were appointed.
•
When reserving the matter for
judgment, the Supreme Court had extended the tenures of chairpersons,
vice-chairpersons and members of tribunals till December 31, 2020. In view of
the final judgment, the retirements of chairpersons, vice-chairpersons and
members of tribunals shall be in accordance with the applicable rules.