Supreme Court Seeks Data From Union On Tribunal Vacancies, Suggests Circuit Benches For AFT

The Supreme Court today asked the Union of India to collate and furnish data on the status of appointments and selection process of judicial/technical/accounting/administrative members of Tribunals across the country.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order in a public interest litigation initiated by the Madras Bar Association, which was listed alongwith a petition raising the issue of vacancies, etc. in the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh.

While the Attorney General for India was asked to furnish "the current status of vacancies in different tribunals and the status and stages of the ongoing selection process, if any", the Court asked Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and other members of the Bar to give suggestions to the AG "for improving the working conditions of Tribunals, including an idea to be explored regarding constituting Circuit Benches so as to provide easy access to justice".

At the outset of the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that the Union assures time and again that requisite appointments will be made, but no progress has taken place. He highlighted that now there is only one AFT bench at Chandigarh and a Member has been transferred, without anyone being appointed in his place.

In response, Justice Kant referred to a former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, who is now an AFT, Chandigarh member, as someone who would be well-versed with the situation. "In Chandigarh, one of the former judges of the High Court-Justice Sudhir Mittal...we hope he is there...incidentally, he has an Army background. He is one best person who knows it", the judge said.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, on his part, urged that the Chairperson of the AFT is seized of the internal administrative issues and the selection process goes on throughout the year.

Underlining the primary concern of the court, Justice Kant said, "We are only concerned with timely appointments. Sometimes, it's not that the Union alone is at fault...". The judge further suggested that advance selection process for Tribunal members be considered (as in the case of NCLAT) since the date of a member demitting office is known.

The hearing also witnessed the Bar and the Bench agree that the contribution to Armed Forces from near Chandigarh (ie from Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh) is substantially high. This was followed by a suggestion from the court regarding the holding of circuit benches. "Can we have the regional bench in Chandigarh, and then like we have done in Family Courts, they can hold circuit bench in Jammu, Srinagar...that will give opportunity to local Bar to assist them. It will also lead to cost-effectivity, access to justice...for Himachal matters, they can go to Shimla and Dharamshala...basic infrastructure is available...High Courts can also provide some...that kind of system can help expedite hearings and reduce cost of litigation also. A retired army official coming all the way to Chandigarh, that also can be avoided."

Giving time of 4 weeks for furnishing of the details and the suggestions, the Court posted the matter after 6 weeks.

Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021