Show If Every DRT Has 30 Staff Members : Supreme Court To Finance Ministry

The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 22) directed the Ministry of Finance to submit an affidavit by January 2, 2025, detailing the available staff strength at each of the 39 Debt Recovery Tribunals across the country.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with a case concerning the judicial staff of DRT Visakhapatnam having been diverted to fulfil certain data collection tasks mandated by the Ministry. This had affected the tribunal's functioning and led to delays in pending cases.

The Court questioned the Ministry's justification that DRT has enough staff to be able to undertake such a task.

“Please see if any DRT in the country actually has 30 staff members. You are justifying your action by saying that DRT has 30 staff members. We are not calling you for contempt; we are saying that set your house in order,” Justice Oka said.

The order recorded, “We expected the Ministry to come out with a proper standard operating procedure for securing data from tribunals. The impression one gets after reading paragraph 3 is that the Ministry wants to suggest that the strength of each DRT is of 29 staff members and one Presiding Officer and therefore data can be easily provided by the DRTs. We direct the Ministry to produce on record the existing staff available with each of the 39 DRTs in India. We grant time till 2nd of January. List on 3rd January.”

The case will be taken up again on January 3, 2025.

Today, the Counsel for the Ministry informed the Court that it had tendered an unconditional apology for its earlier conduct. However, Justice Oka emphasized that the apology was insufficient without assurance that such actions would not recur.

Justice Oka observed, “We want assurance that this will not be done again. Passing orders that give data within three days results in the second half of all staff working for data collection…”

The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Ministry's affidavit and sought an affidavit assuring that such requisitions would not be made again without a proper system in place.

The counsel for the Ministry argued that the data was necessary to improve the system and that it could only be obtained from DRTs as they handle case disposals. Justice Oka, however, questioned the lack of a formal mechanism, stating, “If you want data, how and in what manner are you going to call upon DRT to submit that data? We want that kind of thing to come on record.”

The Ministry's counsel assured the Court that a proper mechanism would be ensured at the highest level. However, Justice Oka insisted that such assurance must be documented in an affidavit. “Because we are not happy with this affidavit," he stated, adding, “You should have said that we will not indulge in such a thing.”

Background

On September 30, 2024, the Court expressed concerns about the Ministry treating the DRT as its subordinate office. It issued notice to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, seeking an explanation.

On October 21, 2024, the Court sought the explanation of the Ministry of Finance for asking the DRTs to collect data on various aspects, including the amount recovered on the basis of their orders. Ministry apologized but sought to justify its actions. The Court criticized the justification, noting that DRTs were not adequately staffed to undertake such exercises.

The Court had noted that data collection requisitions from the Ministry, including details of cases involving amounts over Rs. 100 crores and recovery figures, placed an undue burden on DRTs. The Court criticized the Ministry's approach of seeking data within three days via an email sent on September 9, 2024. This led to staff at DRT Visakhapatnam prioritizing data collection over judicial duties.

The Court had also observed that if the Ministry required such data, it should have provided additional resources to the tribunals rather than expecting existing staff to shoulder the extra burden. Justice Oka remarked, “It's good that the attention of the court was drawn to this; otherwise, this practice would have continued.”

Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11029/2024

Case Title – Superwhizz Professionals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.