Date of the Judgment: February 22, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 137
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A. M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J
The Supreme Court addressed the complexities surrounding the appointment of members to various tribunals in India. This order clarifies the interim directions issued earlier, aiming to streamline the selection processes while ensuring fairness and adherence to legal norms. The court considered the status of selection processes in 19 tribunals and issued specific directions.
Case Background
Several writ petitions were filed challenging the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committees (SCSC) and the terms of office for tribunal members as prescribed in the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, experience and other conditions of service of members) Rules, 2017. The petitioners raised concerns about the selection process. The Supreme Court intervened to ensure that the selection processes were fair and transparent while addressing the urgent need to fill vacancies in various tribunals.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 9 February 2018 | Supreme Court passes an interim order regarding the composition of Search-cum-Selection Committees and terms of office for tribunal members. |
| 12 February 2018 | Case listed for further hearing to address the status of selection processes that had already commenced. |
| 13 February 2018 | Mr. Rohit Bhat, assisting the Attorney General, was directed to file the status of the selection process by the Committees. Senior counsels were directed to file a joint memorandum regarding tribunals covered by the order. |
| 22 February 2018 | The Supreme Court issues a final order clarifying the applicability of the interim directions to various tribunals. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court initially issued an interim order on 9 February 2018, which stayed the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee as per the 2017 Rules and directed the constitution of an interim committee. This interim committee was to be chaired by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee. The order also fixed the term of office of appointees at 5 years, with conditions of service applicable to High Court Judges. The Attorney General proposed modifications to the interim order, particularly regarding the terms of service and tenure, suggesting that these should abide by the old Acts and Rules. The Court accepted these modifications.
Subsequently, on 12 February 2018, the Court listed the matter for further hearing to address the status of selection processes that had already commenced. The Attorney General was directed to file a status report on the selection processes in 19 tribunals.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework under consideration was the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, experience and other conditions of service of members) Rules, 2017, which had been challenged in the writ petitions. The Court’s interim orders and subsequent clarifications aimed to address issues related to the composition of the selection committees and the terms of service for tribunal members, while ensuring the smooth functioning of these tribunals.
Arguments
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court revolved around the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committees and the terms of office for tribunal members. The petitioners argued that the 2017 Rules were flawed and needed to be stayed.
The Attorney General, while agreeing to the interim arrangement, suggested modifications regarding the terms of service and tenure, proposing that these should adhere to the old Acts and Rules.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ Arguments |
|
| Attorney General’s Arguments |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the core issues that the Court addressed were:
- Whether the interim directions issued on 9 February 2018 should apply to all tribunals, including those where the selection process had already commenced.
- How to reconcile the need for a fair and transparent selection process with the need to fill vacancies in various tribunals expeditiously.
- What should be the terms of service and tenure for members appointed through the interim selection process.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Applicability of interim directions to all tribunals | The Court clarified that the interim directions would apply to all tribunals, except those where the selection process had substantially completed. |
| Reconciling fair selection process with the need to fill vacancies | The Court allowed the selection processes to continue in tribunals where substantial progress had been made, while applying the interim directions to tribunals where the process was at an early stage. |
| Terms of service and tenure | The Court modified its earlier direction, stating that the terms of service and tenure would be as per the old Acts and Rules, as suggested by the Attorney General. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or statutes in this order. The main focus was on the interim directions issued by the Court itself and the submissions made by the parties.
| Authority | How it was considered |
|---|---|
| Interim order dated 9 February 2018 | Modified and clarified in light of the status of selection processes in various tribunals. |
Judgment
The Court reviewed the status of the selection processes in 19 tribunals and issued specific directions for each. The Court allowed the selection processes to continue in tribunals where substantial progress had been made, while applying the interim directions to tribunals where the process was at an early stage. The Court also modified its earlier direction regarding the terms of service and tenure, stating that these would be as per the old Acts and Rules.
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ challenge to the 2017 Rules | The Court addressed the concerns by staying the composition of the SCSC as per the 2017 Rules and constituted an interim committee. |
| Attorney General’s suggestion to modify the interim order | The Court accepted the modifications regarding the terms of service and tenure of appointees. |
The Court clarified that the selection process for the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) could proceed to their logical conclusion as substantial steps had already been taken. For the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the selection process for judicial members was allowed to proceed, while the interim directions were applied to administrative members.
The Court also directed that for tribunals where the Chief Justice of India had nominated the Chairperson of the SCSC, and the committee had begun its work, the process would continue based on the terms and conditions in the advertisement.
All recommendations made or to be made by any SCSC for the appointment of Chairperson and/or members were to be processed without being affected by the order dated 9 February 2018.
| Authority | Citation | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Interim order dated 9 February 2018 | [Not Applicable] | The Court modified and clarified its own interim order to accommodate the progress made in the selection processes of various tribunals. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s primary concern was to ensure a balance between maintaining a fair and transparent selection process and the urgent need to fill vacancies in various tribunals. The Court also considered the practical implications of applying the interim directions to all tribunals, especially those where the selection process was already at an advanced stage. The modifications suggested by the Attorney General regarding the terms of service and tenure were also considered to ensure that the process was in line with the existing legal framework.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fairness and Transparency of Selection Process | 40% |
| Need to fill Vacancies | 30% |
| Practical Implications of Interim Directions | 20% |
| Adherence to Legal Framework | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s decision was influenced by the factual status of the selection processes in each tribunal, as well as the legal considerations regarding the interim directions and the existing legal framework.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to balance the competing interests of ensuring a fair selection process and the need to fill vacancies in the tribunals. The Court recognized that in some tribunals, the selection process was already at an advanced stage, and it would not be practical to apply the interim directions to those tribunals. The Court also considered the submissions made by the Attorney General regarding the terms of service and tenure, and it modified its earlier direction to ensure that the process was in line with the existing legal framework.
The Court emphasized that all recommendations made or to be made by any SCSC for appointment of Chairperson and/or members shall be processed further without being affected by the order dated 9 February 2018.
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court clarified the applicability of its interim directions on tribunal appointments.
- Selection processes that had substantially progressed were allowed to continue.
- The terms of service and tenure were to be as per the old Acts and Rules.
- The interim Search-cum-Selection Committee was to be chaired by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee.
- The order aimed to balance fairness in the selection process with the urgent need to fill vacancies in tribunals.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the selection processes in respect of CESTAT, DRT, DRAT, NCLAT, and NCDRC may be completed. The selection process for judicial members of CAT was allowed to proceed, while the interim directions were applied to administrative members. The Court also directed that for tribunals where the Chief Justice of India had nominated the Chairperson of the SCSC, and the committee had begun its work, the process would continue based on the terms and conditions in the advertisement.
Development of Law
This judgment clarifies the application of interim orders in the context of tribunal appointments and emphasizes the importance of balancing procedural fairness with the need for efficient functioning of tribunals. The ratio decidendi of this case is that the interim orders of the court will not affect the selection process of the tribunals where the selection process has substantially been completed.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order provided much-needed clarity on the selection processes for various tribunals amidst ongoing litigation. By allowing selection processes that had substantially progressed to continue while applying interim directions to others, the Court aimed to ensure both fairness and efficiency in the functioning of these important bodies. The modifications to the interim order regarding terms of service and tenure further streamlined the process, aligning it with existing legal frameworks.