Supreme Court Modifies Its Direction On Constitution Of Search Cum Selection Committee For Appointment Of Tribunal Members

The Supreme Court has modified a direction issued by it in the matter of constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of members of the tribunals.

The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat allowed Centre's request to modify a direction issued in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [dated 27 November 2020] by substituting the 'Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India' who was made a member of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, by 'Secretaries to the Government of India nominated by the Cabinet Secretary from a Department other than the parent or sponsoring department'.

As per the new order passed on Monday [25 Jan 2021], the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be as follows:

(a) The Chief Justice of India or his nominee- Chairperson (with a casting vote).
(b) The out-going Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal in case of appointment of the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal (or) the sitting Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal in case of appointment of other Members of the Tribunal (or) a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court in case the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal is not a Judicial member or if the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal is seeking re-appointment – Member; 
c) Two Secretaries to the Government of India nominated by the Cabinet Secretary from a Department other than the parent or sponsoring department – Members.
(d) Secretary to the sponsoring or parent Ministry or Department – Member Secretary/Convener (without a vote).

The Attorney General submitted that there are 19 Tribunals and it will be difficult for the Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice to act as a Member of every Search-cum-Selection Committee which might hinder his other duties. Since the Amicus Curiae did not object to the above suggestion made, the Court allowed this prayer.

Instead of the word "entitled", the word "eligible" may be substituted

In Para 53(vi) of the judgment, it was observed as follows: "They shall be entitled for reappointment for at least one term by giving preference to the service rendered by them for the Tribunals."  The Court accepted the suggestion of the Attorney General that instead of the word "entitled", the word "eligible" may be substituted as it would provide more clarity for the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

Tenure of members

Regarding the suggestion to fix the tenure of Chairpersons, Vice Chairpersons and members of the Tribunals appointed prior to 12.02.2020, the bench directed Amicus Curiae to file his response. The Attorney General submitted that the tenure of the Members appointed prior to 12.02.2020 as per Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 which has been upheld in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. reported in (2020) 6 SCC 1, provides that a Member cannot continue beyond a period of five years.

The bench issued notice to 7 Members appointed as Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Central Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal who would have a tenure between 8 years to 15 years according to the parent statutes and the Rules.

 Fixation of standard HRA

The centre also sought modification of the direction to pay an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as HRA to the Chairman & Vice-Chairman and Rs. 1.25 lakhs per month to the members of the Tribunals. The Attorney General submitted that fixation of standard HRA for all members is not appropriate as it may lead to HRA becoming inadequate after a few years due to inflation.

"The UOI is directed to place on record the particulars of the members of the Tribunals working in X, Y, Z cities/towns and the amounts paid to them as HRA. Details of the accommodation provided to the members of the Tribunal shall also be provided. The UOI shall submit a proposal as to what amount would be reasonable towards HRA in case accommodation cannot be provided to members of the Tribunal.", the bench directed.

CASE: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA [ Miscellaneous Application No. 111/2021 in W.P.(C) No. 804/2020 ]
CORAM: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat 
CITATION: LL 2021 SC 43

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order