Datar reads out the excerpts from the Supreme Court's 2019 judgment where the 2017 Rules were strick down and the SC had directed for the new set of Rules to be framed that would be in line with the SC's guidelines laid down in its precedents.
Datar: One thing unique about India is our SC has permitted judicial powers to be exercised by the Tribunals.
My argument in relation to National taxation tribunal was that core judicial power cannot be taken away from the Courts system.
Justice Nariman struck down NTT.
Datar: my humble submission is today for better or worse, we have accepted the fact that judicial functions can be exercised by Tribunals. But my prayer is that Centre must then ensure that these Tribunals then are as independent as possible
Datar: Some guidelines must be laid down to ensure that there is independence of these Tribunals that have now the power to exercise judicial functions.
Datar: SC has repeatedly said that Tribunals should not become havens for retired Judges... The idea that SC has repeatedly said that take young members should be considered.
Datar in his parting submissions requests Court to open up the opportunity for advocates which will also enable lady members of the Bar to be appointed in Tribunals and will help in improving representation aspect.
Senior Counsel Aryama Sundaram begins his submissions.
His submissions will touch upon
- Opportunity for lawyers to be appointed in Tribunals
- Restrospective vs prospective applicability of the Tribunal Rules
Sundaram: For the past 35 years lawyers have been eligible... If you want to make a departure from that, there must be some good reason. What is most telling is that even the 2017 Rules which were struck down did not disentitle lawyers.
Sundaram: The exclusion of lawyers has no nexus or connection with what is the purpose of the Tribunals.
To eliminate lawyers in a blanket manner is totally discriminatory especially when these Tribunals exercise the functions of what civil courts would have
Sundaram: The DRAT, NCLAT etc have taken away the jurisdiction from the HC and vested them in the Tribunals.
Your Lordships would look at these being equal to the normal Court system.
Sundaram: Through these enactments, control over judicial bodies has been given to the executive and this would impinge on the doctrine of judicial independence.
Sundaram: Do not just see this from the lens of Article 14. This violates the basic structure of our Constitution.
Justice Bhat: You have an analogy here, but it is an extreme one.
Sundaram: Your Lordships would look at it through the lens and when testing a legislation then look at it through a magnifying glass with regard to the independence of judiciary.
Justice Rao: We have a number of judgements here including Rojer Mathew where this aspect ha ls been considered.
(Sundaram is now taking the Court through a status report filed by Centre on vacancies in CAT)
Sundaram: Therefore, I submit that If your Lordships are to uphold the Rules, they cannot have retrospective effect and cannot make candidates ineligible who were earlier qualified.
Sundaram reads excerpts from the Madras Bar Association judgement of 2014 on tbe issue of qualification of candidates and for lawyers to be eligible
Sundaram: When the Constitution itself does not make a distinction between a lawyer or a judge being appointed to the superior judiciary then an enactment cannot bring in such a distinction for a lower level of courts/bodies.
Sundaram summarises:
- SC should view the enactment with the lens that it would use for examining any legislation that makes judicial inroads
- Rules are on the face of them prospective.
- Exclusion of Lawyers is arbitrary.
(Sundaram concludes his arguments)
Senior Counsel Siddharth Luthra now making submissions on behalf of a a candidate who had applied for being appointed in the CESAT under 2017 Rules which came to be struck down in 2019.
Justice Rao: We were discussing this earlier... There was interim order that any appointments that were made after Rojer Mathew judgment were to be regulated by the parent Act.
Luthra: They are treating my appointment as fresh appointment and this is what I'm agitating against also.
Justice Rao: Your entitlement b to pe sion may not be related.
Luthra: In terms of pension they are treating me as a fresh appointee and that is the problem
Luthra stresses that the Rules cannot be applied retrospectively.
(Luthra cites SC's precedents to support his case that the Rules in place at the time of the issuance of advertisement for vacancy should be applicable)
Justice Rao: What is your response on the requirement of 25 years experience for appointment to ITAT?
Khanna: When you're replacing the jurisdiction of a Court and vesting it in a Tribunal, you cannot prescribe a qualification that is different from Constitutional provisions.
Khanna concludes.
Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi begins his submissions on behalf of three judicial members of CESTAT.
Rohatgi: Under the Rules of 1987, members of ITAT and CESTAT go up to 62 years.
Rohatgi: There is an error coming because for all other Tribunals there is five years tenure but for ITAT and CESTAT it is five years or 62 years of age. As far as we (his clients) are concerned, it has to be 62.
Rohatgi: If a lawyer or a District Judge joins the Tribunal at 50 and after five years he is told that your tenure is over, he will lose out on everything. This will lead to absurdity.
Rohatgi: Even the interim relief which directed for all apointments to go back to parent Acts also reiterates my case.
(Rohatgi now cites the example of appointment of Justice Manjula Chellur as the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity)
Rohatgi: I think they have something against the lawyers. What is the point of saying that a lawyer with 10 years experience can be appointed a Judge of the High Court but cannot be appointed to these Tribunals.
Ultimately this is how the Bar grows, but lawyers are excluded.
Rohatgi: Today Your Lordships have extended the tenure of Justice Manmohan Singh... He's one of the most renowned in the arena of IP.
He has disposed of so many cases.
But he was not sure if his tenure is getting over.
Rohtagi: Justice Cheema (NCLAT) the other day said that "I will give you a date if I have time"
This is how Tribunals are functioning.
Rohtagi: If Tribunalisation has to happen and jurisdiction is taken from Courts and vested in Tribunals then it should be done gracefully.
What's the point of Madras Bar Association judgements 1, 2 and 3 saying judicial member is a must and after five years they are told to go.
Rohatgi concludes.
Senior Advocate AS Chandhiok making a case of members of the NCLAT who are due to retire in the next thirty days.
Justice Rao indicates that the judgement on this case can be expected in two weeks so matter can be dealt with thereafter.
Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan made brief submissions on behalf of an applicant on the aspect of tenure of members being four years.
Senior Advocate Gautam Misra argues in a transfer petition.
Misra is referring to the SC judgment in the RK Jain case of 1994 which appreciates the "invaluable and vital role" of the Bar in being capable of discharging judicial services.
Misra: RK Jain judgment was considered and relied on in the Rojer Mathew judgment.
Point is that executive would be bound by RK Jain judgment.
Misra: If all these are considered, then there js no way Advocates can be excluded.
By bringing in the Rules through an executive action they have tried to take away the effect of legislative provisions which make lawyers eligible.
Misra concludes.
Senior Advocate S Guru Krishnakumar for intervenors argues that if the Court upholds the Rules, then okay but should the Rules be struck down then the matter considering IPAB should be considered separately.
Chitambaresh argues that the interim order which ordered for apointments to go back to parent Act was modified later to say that the appointments after 2017 Rules were struck down to be governed by the advertisment issued.
Senior Counsel C Nageswar Rao argues on behalf of applicants in relation to CESTAT.
His sole point is that the new Rules should be made applicable to his client also.
Supreme Court hears the case where it took objection to the absence of an advocate-on-record (AoR) in court during the hearing of a case filed through him
Justice Bela Trivedi: You could not have filed the SLP. If you don't get it you should not be a AoR. I will not leave the case just like that. You took undue advantage of some thing
AoR: I take responsibility
SC: you have no option but to take this. Apology will not do
Justice Trivedi: judgment had come and you are challenging it. Should you not read the papers. Where is the scope for any explanation.
AoR: my learned friend
SC: don't say learned fried. We are agitated and pained. Day in and day out we are seeing this. It is you and only you. For surrendering you say condone delay. Then in condonation application.. what kind of language is being used
AoR: the plea has been drawn by someone else
Justice Trivedi: So what ?????? It bears your signature or not
Scenes from the Delhi High Court after the declaration of Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) election results. Senior Advocate N Hariharan has been elected as the President of DHCBA.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan secured 2,967 votes and won by a margin of 87 votes. Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal came second with 2,880 votes.
The other two candidates - Senior Advocate Abhijat garnered 1,429 votes and Senior Advocate Vivek Sood garnered 339 votes.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan after winning the elections.
#Breaking Bombay High Court has overturned a Family Court decision that denied the request to waive the statutory cooling-off period for the divorce of cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and Dhanashree Verma under the Hindu Marriage Act.
#BombayHC #YuzvendraChahal
A bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar has also directed the family court to decide the divorce petition by tomorrow considering Chahal's participation in the upcoming IPL
The couple that got married in December 2020 was living apart since June 2022.
#SupremeCourt to shortly deliver judgment on this significant issue
The court to hand down verdict in the suo motu case concerning visually impaired in judicial services
The genesis of the case lies in the rules governing judicial appointments in Madhya Pradesh which contained discriminatory language that prevented blind individuals from becoming judges.
This exclusion was challenged after a mother, whose visually impaired child aspired to the judiciary, wrote to the court, leading to a court-initiated public interest litigation.
Justice R Mahadevan: we have treated it as the most important case. We have touched upon constitutional framework also and institutional disability jurisprudence...
#SupremeCourt to shortly hear plea by Ranveer Allahabadia and Ashish Chanchlani in the case over remarks made in #indiasgotlatent show
Allahabadia and Chanchlani were protected from arrest in the last hearing
@BeerBicepsGuy
Dr Abhinav Chandrachud: We have moved an application. We are seeking lifting of one part of the order which refrained him from airing his shows etc. He has no sense of humour at all.. but he has 280 employees and it is his livelihood. It can be ordered that let no profane words be uttered.
SG: this is an isolated case. It is not vulgar but it is perverse. I saw the show also out of curiosity.. humour is one thing, vulgarity is one thing, and perversity is another level. Leave alone man and woman.. me and AG cannot see it together. The judges cannot see it together. Let him stay quiet for sometime .. Assam called him. He did not come.
Supreme Court to hear plea by Ranveer Allahabadia challenging multiple FIRs filed against him after he made certain remarks on India's Got Latent show
@BeerBicepsGuy #SupremeCourt #Indiasgotlatent
Dr Abhinav Chandrachud: Petitioner has got death threats.. 5 lakh reward for cutting his tongue. Former wrestler says he should not be spared in any party we meet him. All for a 10 second clip.
Are you defending the language used: Justice Surya Kant
Dr Chandrachud: As an officer of the court I am disgusted at the language used.
SC: so what are the parameters of obscenity and vulgarity. In the society which has some self evolved values and when we behave within those parameters we want to know what are the parameters of Indian society According to the petitioner.