Supreme Court Directs Interim Measures for Tribunal Appointments Amidst Legal Challenge

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kudrat Sandhu vs. Union of India & Anr., delivered an important ruling regarding the appointment process of members in various tribunals across the country. The case addressed concerns about the composition and appointment procedures under the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal, and Other Authorities (Qualification, Experience, and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017. The Court intervened to ensure a fair and transparent selection process through interim arrangements while the main petition remained pending.

Background of the Case

The case arose from multiple writ petitions challenging the 2017 Rules governing the selection and appointment of tribunal members. The petitioners contended that the Rules were arbitrary and undermined judicial independence by granting excessive control to the executive in the appointment process. The Supreme Court had to decide on an interim mechanism to ensure appointments continued fairly during the pendency of the case.

On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an interim order outlining an alternative selection process. The order introduced a new Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) framework for appointing tribunal members.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ (Kudrat Sandhu & Others) Arguments

• The 2017 Rules gave the executive excessive power, violating the principle of judicial independence.
• The composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee under the Rules was biased, allowing undue influence in appointments.
• The term of tribunal members was unreasonably reduced to three years, making it difficult to attract qualified candidates.
• Appointments should follow the principles applicable to High Court judges to maintain judicial integrity.

Respondents’ (Union of India) Arguments

• The 2017 Rules were framed to bring uniformity in tribunal appointments and did not undermine judicial independence.
• The government had no objection to modifying the appointment process as an interim measure but sought adherence to existing service conditions.
• The proposed selection committee under the Rules ensured transparency and efficiency.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud issued an interim order restructuring the tribunal appointment process.

1. Interim Search-cum-Selection Committee

The Court replaced the original selection process with an interim committee:

• Chief Justice of India or his nominee – Chairman
• Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal – Member
• Two Secretaries nominated by the Government of India – Members

The Court clarified that all appointments during the interim period would be based on the recommendations of this committee.

2. Term of Office Extended

The Court stayed the three-year term prescribed in the 2017 Rules and directed that all appointments be for five years, in line with prior norms.

3. Applicability of High Court Service Conditions

The Court ordered that all appointees would receive service conditions equivalent to those of High Court judges, ensuring parity in status and benefits.

4. Government’s Modification Accepted

The Attorney General objected to certain aspects of the petitioners’ proposals. The Court accepted the following modifications:

• Appointments would follow the service conditions under the old tribunal laws instead of High Court rules.
• The tenure of appointees would be determined by the previous tribunal statutes rather than being fixed at five years.

The Court incorporated these changes into its final directive.

5. Tribunal-Specific Considerations

The Court reviewed the status of appointments in various tribunals and issued tribunal-wise directions. For example:

• For CESTAT (Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal), the selection process was substantially completed and allowed to continue unaffected.
• For Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), appointments for judicial members were directed to proceed while the rules for administrative members were stayed.
• For National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), selections were allowed to continue since they followed the structure prescribed in the new rules.

Key Observations

• The ruling temporarily overrides the 2017 Rules, ensuring fairness in tribunal appointments while the case is pending.
• The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s oversight in ensuring independence and transparency in tribunal administration.
• The Supreme Court’s directions provide much-needed clarity for pending tribunal appointments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kudrat Sandhu vs. Union of India ensures that tribunal appointments remain fair, transparent, and independent from undue executive influence. By restructuring the appointment process and extending tenure conditions, the Court has safeguarded judicial integrity while allowing the government’s concerns to be addressed. The final ruling in the main case will determine whether these changes become permanent.

Petitioner Name: Kudrat Sandhu
Respondent Name: Union of India & Anr.
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Judgment Date: 22-02-2018

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kudrat Sandhu vs Union of India & Anr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-02-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category