Act And Friction

Context: A national commission is essential to make appointments to tribunals.

Issues in working of tribunals

• Inordinate delay in filing up vacancies: Recently, Supreme Court sharply questioned government on this unusual delay, in filling up vacancies among judicial and administrative members.
• Cherry-picking in selection of members: Supreme Court pointed out that there was cherry-picking among the names chosen by the various Selection Committees for appointment.
  • State control over appointments: Instead of exhausting the selection list put together by panels of judges and officials, the Government had waded into the waiting list to exercise its choice.
• Arbitrary executive interventions: Recently, Government cut short the tenure of the Acting Chairperson of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Justice A.I.S. Cheema, by 10 days. He was set to deliver in some matters on which the NCLAT had reserved judgment before retiring on September 20.
  • The Government’s justification was that it was going by its latest law, under which the Acting Chairperson’s four-year tenure would end on September 10.
  • Supreme Court opined that he should be allowed to complete his tenure, and even remarked that the Court would not hesitate to stay the operation of the Act on its own motion.
  • The issue was settled as government backed out from the move.
• Tribunals, a constant source of friction between Government and Court: They have often disagreed on the eligibility criteria and conditions of service and a series of judgments have gone against the Government.
  • Courts want to ensure that a reasonable tenure was available to the appointees, and do not allow criteria related to age and experience to be used to undermine their independence.
  • As several laws now provide for such adjudicative bodies, the executive does have an interest in retaining some leverage over their members.