Exclusion Of Advocates From Post Of DRT & DRAT Presiding Officers Challenged; Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre's response in a plea challenging the exclusion of Advocates from being eligible for the post of Presiding Officer and Chairman, Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals under the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications,Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Amendment...
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre's response in a plea challenging the exclusion of Advocates from being eligible for the post of Presiding Officer and Chairman, Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals under the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications,Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Amendment Rules, 2021.
A Division Bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose issued notice on the writ petition filed by DRT Bar Association Delhi but was not inclined to pass any interim order directing consideration of Advocates for appointment as Judicial members, Debt Recovery Tribunal at present.
The petition filed by the DRT Bar Association Delhi under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the provisions of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience, and other Conditions of Service of Members) (Amendment) Rules 2021 to the extent they exclude advocates from the zone of consideration for appointment as DRT/DRAT Presiding Officers.
The plea filed by Advocate Viresh Saharya and drawn by Advocate Sanjeev Bhandari points out that under the same Rules, the Advocates are eligible for consideration for post of Judicial Member/ Presiding Officer/ Chairman for 9 Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals.
The petitioner has stated that Supreme Court in its judgement in the case of Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, decided on 14th July 2021 had directed that Advocates with 10 years experience must be made eligible for the consideration for the post of Judicial Member/Presiding Officer/Chairman of Tribunals. In the Madras Bar Association case, the Supreme Court had quashed the minimum age qualification of 50 years set by the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021 for appointment as Tribunal Members, and held that exclusion of advocates with 10 years experience was arbitrary and unreasonable.
The petitioner has argued that based on the impugned rules, the Union of India has now issued an advertisement dated 12th July 2021 inviting applications for the post of the presiding officer for Debt Recovery Tribunals all over India excluding advocates in complete contravention to the Top Court's judgment. The petitioner has urged the Court to set aside the advertisement for being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
The petitioner has also pointed out that there are three Debts Recovery Tribunal in Delhi and the post of Ld Presiding Officer has been lying vacant in DRT- I since January 2020, in DRT-II since March 2021, and in DRT-III since January 2021.
Click Here To Download The Writ Petition