Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Kudrat Sandhu v. Union Of India And Others

Supreme Court Of India

Jul 16, 2018

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

CASE NO.

(Record of Proceedings),Writ Petitions (C) No. 279 of 2017 with Nos. 640, 925 of 2017, 33, 205 and 467 of 2018, decided on July 16, 2018

Attorney(S)

Sidharth Luthra and Ashok Kr. Panda, Senior Advocates [Ms Maneesha Dhir, Karan Batura, Ashu Kansal, Ms Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Satyabrata Panda, Manoranjan Paikaray, Aniruddha Purushotham, Tejaswi Kr. Pradhan (Advocate-on-Record), A.K. Behera, V.K. Verma (Advocate-on-Record), Ms Priya Hingorani, Naresh Kumar, Kripa Shanker Prasad, Ms Palak Mahajan, Ms Diksha Rai (Advocate-on-Record), Ms Rhea Dube, Rupesh Kumar (Advocate-on-Record), Pravesh Bahuguna, Prashant Rawat, Arun Monga, Ms Divya Sharma, Ms Mayuri Raghuvanshi (Advocate-on-Record), Ms Aishwarya Bhati and Ms Anushree Prashit Kapadia (Advocate-on-Record), Advocates] for the Petitioner;

K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General and Maninder Singh, Additional Solicitor General [S.S. Shamshery, R. Balasubramanian, Ms Rukmini Bobde, Harish V. Shekhar, Ms Shraddha Deshmukh, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Rohit Bhat, B.K. Prasad, Mukesh Kr. Maroria (Advocate-on-Record), Ajay Bansal, Gaurav Yadava, Ms Veena Bansal, Ajayveer Singh Jain, Uday Ram Bokadia, Ms Divya Garg, Sonal Jain (Advocate-on-Record), Zoheb Hossain (Advocate-on-Record) and Ashok Mathur (Advocate-on-Record), Advocates] for the Respondents.

JUDGES

Dipak Misra, C.J.

A.M. Khanwilkar

Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

Two writ petitions—WP (C) No. 33 of 2018 and WP (C) No. 640 of 2017—were mentioned before the Court. The petitioners complained that vacancies in key adjudicatory bodies remain unfilled: the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). During the same sitting, the Court also dealt with issues concerning the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The present order records the Court’s directions for gathering information and clarifies the tenure applicable to ITAT members and its President.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the executive has delayed or failed to fill existing vacancies in the NCDRC and CAT despite completion of selection procedures.
What tenure applies to Members and the President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in light of apparent confusion over the age of superannuation.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

WP (C) No. 33 of 2018: Vacancies in the NCDRC remain unfilled, adversely affecting its functioning.
WP (C) No. 640 of 2017: Despite completion of the appointment process for CAT, the selected candidates have not yet been appointed.

Respondent (Union of India) Position

The learned Attorney General sought time to obtain instructions on the status of appointments in the NCDRC, CAT, and AFT.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court treated the matter primarily as an administrative follow-up:

Directed the learned Attorney General, assisted by counsel Mr. R. Balasubramanian, to obtain concrete instructions on pending appointments to the NCDRC, CAT, and AFT.
Allowed petitioners’ counsel to submit written statements identifying any anomalies so that the Attorney General could be fully briefed.
Clarified statutory confusion regarding ITAT tenure, ruling that Members shall serve until the age of 62 and the President until 65.
Fixed the next date of hearing for 13-08-2018 and ordered clubbing of WP (C) No. 467 of 2018 with WP (C) No. 279 of 2017.

Holding and Implications

ORDER ISSUED; MATTER ADJOURNED TO 13-08-2018

Immediate Effect: Counsel for the Union of India must gather and present complete information on tribunal vacancies; the ITAT tenure is definitively set at 62 years for Members and 65 years for the President. Broader Implications: While no new legal precedent was established, the order signals judicial oversight over timely appointments to statutory tribunals.

Show all summary ...

Order

1. Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 33 of 2018 submits that certain positions in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Ncdrc) have not yet been filled up though vacancies are there. Mr A.K. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 640 of 2017 submitted in respect of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that though the matter has reached the final stage, yet the persons have not yet been appointed.

2. Mr K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India assisted by Mr R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel shall obtain instructions in this regard.

3. If any anomaly is there, it will be open to the learned counsel to serve a copy of the same by way of a written statement to Mr R. Balasubramanian, who in turn, may brief the learned Attorney General. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel shall also submit a statement in writing as regards the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), a copy of which shall be served on Mr R. Balasubramanian.

4. At this juncture, we may note that there is some confusion with regard to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as regards the age of superannuation. We make it clear that the person selected as Member of ITAT will continue till the age of 62 years and the person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years.

5. Let the matter be listed on 13-8-2018.

WP (C) No. 467 of 2018

6. Let this matter be listed along with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 279 of 2017.