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 a petition urging for the postponement of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) Chartered Accountancy (CA) exams
Sr Adv Madhavi Divan: There are students from Kalahandi and other rural areas who will not be able to appear for the exams on 8th and 14th May since elections are on. It can be on 7th and 13th may.
#caexams #SupremeCourt #LokSabhaElections2024
Divan: We are not asking for a bulk postponement. If there is a bunch of candidates from Rajouri. Now they can only come by public transport and with security issues it is impossible to travel and public buses also withdrawn during elections. Hostels are also being asked to vacate. One we are asking postpone and if not possible then atleast allow an out option so that one does not suffer if they are not appearing on May 8 and May 14
#caexams
Divan: Other option can be to increase centres. Delhi, Mumbai students will not suffer. But those coming from north east etc who need to travel states have to suffer. Petitioners are candidates who will not be affected but this plea is for the public interest.
Former High Court judge and Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar to shortly deliver a lecture as part of Rakesh Endowment Lecture series for Justice and Equity.
The theme is 'Guilty Till Proved innocent: Dark Areas of Criminal Jurisprudence'
G Sundar, Director of Roja Muthiah Research Library, delivers the welcome address.
Delhi High Court castigates Arvind Kejriwal led Delhi government and AAP led MCD for its failure to provide textbooks to over 2 lakh students.
Court says Delhi govt is only interested in appropriation of power and by not resigning, despite his arrest, Arvind Kejriwal has put personal interest over the national interest.
#DelhiHighCourt @AamAadmiParty
@ArvindKejriwal
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made these scathing remarks while dealing with a PIL raising the issue that the students studying in MCD schools have not received textbooks and are studying in tin sheds because of the logjam in the civic body.
ACJ Manmohan also commented on the conduct of Urban Development Minister Saurabh Bhardwaj and said that he had turned a blind eye to the plight of students and is shedding crocodile tears.
Senior Advocate Pramila Nesargi makes submissions for petitioner: Written statement has been filed. The facts are admitted. The contentions raised under ... are not there in the written statement.
#KarnatakaHighCourt #Siddaramaiah
Nesargi: Election of all 135 persons elected to Karnataka Assembly should be set aside.. I want the entire election of Karnataka to be set aside. That is the object with which election petition has been filed.
Is Arvind Kejriwal deliberately eating mangoes and sweets to spike sugar level and create ground for bail?
Delhi court to examine Tihar Jail report shortly after ED's allegations.
Hearing to start at 2PM.
#ArvindKejriwal @AamAadmiParty @ArvindKejriwal
Yesterday, ED's Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain had informed the Rouse Avenue Court that the details came to be known after the agency wrote to Tihar jail and sought information about Kejriwal's diet and the medicines being taken by him.
Kejriwal's lawyers have refuted ED's allegations and said that these are merely allegations for the media.
They have alleged that ED does not want Kejriwal to even have home cooked food which has been allowed by the Court.