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.
Goa High Court Bar Association felicitates Chief Justice of India BR Gavai
CJI BR Gavai: Now the registry examines and only in very rare matters we permit oral mentions in the Supreme Court of India. The sitting at Goa as a part of division bench, like in SC you don't know which case is next, in Goa we had variety of litigation...whether it be mining or personal laws.
CJI: I won't detain you all for long. For Goa standards, 7:30 pm is for something else.
CJI: I had decided that I will accept felicitations only at places where I was a member of the Bar or have worked there. This felicitation was to happen on July 19...and was to be the last one.
Supreme Court hears appeal against Allahabad HC order upholding the trial court’s order permitting a court-monitored survey of the Sambhal Masjid
Justice PS Narasimha: It is being argued that this case has to be seen from the lens of Places of Worship Act, 1991
Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain: Just by saying that the act is attracted does not attract the 1991 act.
SC: Question is survey arising out of 1991 act or the ASI act..
Sr Adv Huzefa Ahmadi: They say 1991 act does not apply..HC says there is no bar..I am in appeal and in meanwhile all surveys were stated.
Jain: On the face of it
Justice Narasimha: Yes you have a point that it is not concerned with 1991 act.. and HC gave finding against the Muslim side.. so we need to hear this.. the challenge is pending here...
SC: Mr Jain appearing for Respondent 3 to 8 takes notice of the SLP. It is surprising as to how two appeals have been filed by the same parties.
Jain: In court 4 item 10 has been dismissed.
Ahmadi: it is the mathura case...
SC: we were about to issue notice.
Justice Narasimha: Let us take a look at court 4 item 10 order.. we do not want to pass inconsistent orders. Let it be listed on Monday.
Supreme Court to resume hearing the Bihar SIR case today
Earlier the top court had asked the Election Commission of India @ECISVEEP to upload online the list of 65 lakh voters proposed to be deleted during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision
#SupremeCourt #BiharSIR_2025
Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi for the Election Commission of India: We have complied with it letter and spirit. Apart from BLA and panchayat we have also pasted this outside police stations.
#SupremeCourt #BiharSIR_2025
Dwivedi: Anyone wrongly excluded can file form with supporting documents.
Adv Prashant Bhushan: they have complied with the direction but the problem which has arisen
Supreme Court to shortly pronounce judgment on petitions seeking stay on suo motu directions passed Justice JB Pardiwala led bench to remove the stray dogs in Delhi NCR #StrayDogs #SupremeCourt
Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had observed that the menace of dog bites directly infringes the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court had noted that over 25,000 dog bite cases were reported in Delhi in 2024, with over 3,000 in January 2025 alone, and that sterilisation rules had failed to control the problem over the past two
Thereafter a three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard pleas seeking stay on the order passed by Justice Pardiwala led bench.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant to shortly speak at the inaugural lecture series organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
The lecture is titled “Justice for all- Legal Aid and Mediation: The collaborative role of Bar and the Bench”
#SupremeCourt #SCBA
Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh (President, SCBA): Justice for all and mediation go hand in hand. It is only in the mediation process that there are no losers. In litigation there is one side which feels that it has not got justice. In mediation both sides feel like they have got justice. Justice for all is embedded in the concept of mediation.
Singh: the bar and bench should always to first think of settlement when it comes to any litigation. As litigation goes further, bitterness increases. If bar and bench both play a role in mediation and legal aid process, it will be a big opening in this subject. Today we have 5.36cr pending cases in the country. If mediation succeeds in this country it will drastically and overnight reduce the pendency of cases in this country. It can unclog the system. And ensure people in this country get justice.
Supreme Court hears a plea seeking to prevent the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing historical monuments and Sufi saints’ graves in Delhi’s Mehrauli.
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan
J Nagarathna: Why do you want to demolish it?
Counsel for DDA: It is a forest area.....we are against ancillary construction that come with Dargah.
J R Mahadevan: There is an express order there shall be no construction
Advocate Nizam Pasha referred to the Court’s previous order, contending that since the ASI has established the Dargah as a 12th-century monument, the opinion of the religious committee holds no relevance.