Any Attempt To Vilify Judges Without Any Reasonable Basis Can’t Be Permitted: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Lawyers' Body
While dismissing a plea challenging re-appointment of Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia as Chairperson of Railway Claims Tribunal with a cost of Rs. 50,000, the Delhi High Court has said that any attempt to vilify judges without any reasonable basis cannot be permitted.Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected the plea moved by Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow, seeking direction on Central Government...
While dismissing a plea challenging re-appointment of Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia as Chairperson of Railway Claims Tribunal with a cost of Rs. 50,000, the Delhi High Court has said that any attempt to vilify judges without any reasonable basis cannot be permitted.
Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected the plea moved by Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow, seeking direction on Central Government to lay down a fair and transparent selection procedure for appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman (Judicial), Vice Chairman (Technical), Member (Judicial) and Members (Technical) in Railway Claims Tribunal.
Observing that the entire attempt in the petition on behalf of the lawyers’ association was to “raise aspersions against the duly constituted Tribunal”, the court said:
“Accordingly, considering the nature of submissions made in Court and in the pleadings, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that any attempt to vilify Judges, without any reasonable basis, be it Judges of Constitutional Courts, Trial Courts or judges presiding over Quasi-Judicial bodies cannot be permitted.”
The petitioner submitted that Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia was not eligible and qualified for re-appointment and that proper procedure was not followed in the appointment process.
It was contended that on the retirement of the earlier Chairman, a Selection Committee was constituted and a list was prepared wherein Justice Ajit Singh was selected and offered the appointment. However, after he declined the appointment, Justice Ahluwalia (retired) was offered the post instead of offering it to other persons who had applied.
On the other hand, the Union of India in its response said that the Search-Cum- Selection Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship of a Supreme Court Judge, decided to search for suitable persons eligible for appointment to the post of Chairperson and drew up a list of six judges of various High Courts. A panel of two judges was then suggested to the Government, including the name of Justice Ahluwalia (retired) which was accepted and notified.
In rejoinder, the petitioner submitted that the committee just “handpicked out of a hat” five eligible candidates even though there were more than 60-70 eligible persons. It alleged that the whole exercise was “fishy and clearly smacks of favoritism and nepotism” since Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia is the “Samdhi” of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the petitioner said that the manner in which the committee did the “search” is a “slap on the face to the term search and throwing all norms and principles to the winds and acting like an autocrat.”
Taking exception to the submissions, Justice Singh said that the rejoinder “smacks of sensationalism” and uses a completely “unbecoming language.”
Observing that the language used in the rejoinder clearly shows that the intention is to simply raise baseless and scandalous allegations, the court said:
“Wild allegations are made by the Petitioner without verification of facts or law. The intention appears to be simply to besmirch various individuals for some inexplicable reason, rather than to raise grounds within the confines of law. The entire process which has been explained in the counter affidavit shows that all the requisite safeguards have been followed and the appointment process has been done in accordance with the applicable Act and Rules.”
The court said that the process of appointment has been explained by the Union of India in its counter affidavit and none of the grounds raised in the petition were made out for setting aside the re- appointment.
“In the overall facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the petition and the pleadings filed by the Petitioner are nothing but an attempt towards undermining the dignity of the current Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal and impede in the functioning of the Railway Claims Tribunal,” it said.
The court ordered that the cost of Rs. 50,000 shall be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks.
Title: RAIL DAWA BAR ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 223