ITAT Appointments : Supreme Court Asks Centre To Produce Files Submitted Before SCSC With New Inputs

The Supreme Court on Friday sought from the Central Government the files produced before the Search-cum-Selection Committee(SCSC) with new inputs in relation to certain persons considered for appointment as members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT).

The bench comprising Justice Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna was considering a contempt petition filed by the Advocate Association Bengaluru in 2021 against the then Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs alleging that the Centre had violated Supreme Court directions by not appointing the names cleared by the SCSC.

In the previous hearing, the Attorney General for India had informed the Court that the names were withheld in the light of discovery of new materials in intelligence inquiries, which raised doubts about integrity of some recommendees. However, the Court had then said that the Centre cannot unilaterally withhold names already cleared by the SCSC(which is headed by a Supreme Court judge) on the basis of subsequent materials, and that the proper course is to share such materials with the SCSC. On May 17, the bench led by Justice Chandrachud directed the Centre to place the fresh materials before the SCSC and requested the SCSC to re-convene to consider the same.

The issue related to the non-consideration of 19 names out of the 41 names recommended by the SCSC in 2019 for the ITAT. The SCSC led by Justice AM Khanwilkar had proposed 28 candidates in main list and 13 in wait list out of which 16 were selected from the main list and 6 from wait list.

Today, AG KK Venugopal informed the bench that following the last order, the SCSC held meetings on May 18 and June 8. "The reconstituted SCSC after deliberations did not recommend the said persons for ITAT. So, there is no proposal pending", AG said.

"So the committee has come to the conclusion that these people can't be recommended?", Justice Chandrachud asked. The AG reiterated that based on the new inputs, the Committee recalled the previous recommendations.

Senior Advocate R Basant, appearing for the Advocates Association, submitted that there is lack of clarity from the minutes of the meeting as to whether the committee has considered all the earlier recommendations. Basant said that the SCSC, in the second round of deliberations, considered only 6 names, and even with regard to the said names, it does not record a conclusive statement that the recommendations have been recalled. The Committee merely records that the exercise was "avoidable", the senior counsel submitted.

The Attorney General however maintained that all 19 names were considered by the SCSC.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who is the amicus curiae in the matter, also shared the doubts expressed by Basant as to whether the Committee re-considered all the 19 pending names.

"As Mr.Basant pointed, it appears that the committee has only discussed 6 people. We are playing with careers of judicial officers, so there should be no doubt left. Nobody knows what are the materials placed. Kindly call for the files. The AG also need to clarify why they are selecting 6 from the wait list when there were people in the main list", Datar submitted. Datar suggested that the matter be posted on July 26, when the batch matters challenging the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 are listed.

Basant reiterated that there is ambiguity regarding if the Committee did in fact recall the earlier recommendations at all.

"The say the exercise was 'avoidable'. Avoidable means whole thing was unnecessary or is it that they are not to be considered?", Basant asked.

"What could have happened is that, the committee is also feeling a bit awkward, and they don't want to say they are recalling, So they are indicating in a discreet manner", Justice Chandrachud said.

Justice Chandrachud requested the AG to produce the related files. In the order, the bench asked the Centre to clarify if the fresh inputs related to only 6 persons.

The bench will consider the matter next on July 26.

Case Title : Advocate Association Bengaluru versus Anoop Kumar Mendiratta Contempt Petition (Civil) No.708/2021 filed in Madras Bar Association versus Union of India WP(c) No.502/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order