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 plea related to Viktoriia Basu, a Russian mother who absconded with her 4-year-old son amid an ongoing custody battle with her Indian husband.
The Court had earlier directed the Centre to trace her after she reportedly went missing with the child.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informs the Court that the investigation has reached a stage where diplomatic channels are being engaged.
She submits that steps are being taken with Nepal, UAE, and Russia, as these appear to be the directions in which Viktoriia Basu has moved.
Justice Kant tells ASG Aishwarya Bhati that the child was not in the custody of either parent, but under the custody of the Supreme Court itself—hence, the matter is being taken very seriously as the child was taken from the Court’s custody.
Supreme Court hears a Public Interest Litigation seeking ban on betting apps and stringent regulations for online gaming and fantasy sports.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
In may 2025, Supreme Court on sought response from a Union Government and observed that it will consider issuing notice to States at a later stage if it deems necessary.
Supreme Court hears the plea by son of former parliamentarian Mohan Delkar and a complainant in the abetment to suicide case of his father, Abhinav Delkar assailing the Bombay High Court ruling to quash the FIR against nine accused including Praful Patel, administrator of Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Diu and Daman, and Lakshadweep 'to prevent abuse of law'
Sr Adv Meenakshi Arora appears for the petitioner
Arora: He says the deputy collector and the administrator misbehaved..
CJI: show us who.. where is it mentioned
Arora: I will show.. this is the humiliation.. it's there in his suicide note also
CJI: but can this humiliation be said to compel leading to suicide. If a lawyer is humiliated by judge saying your client has chosen an idiot person to represent him or that the lawyer is stupid and does not know anything..then after 3 days he commits suicide. Will the judge be held responsible under section 306 IPC. In Bombay HC I have quashed so many such cases.
#Breaking Terrosim has no religion but conviction cannot be based on moral grounds, NIA Court acquitts all seven accused including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
An explosion that occured on September 29, 2009 at Malegaon, Nashik had killed six people and injured over 100.
Special Judge AK Lahoti while acquitting all 7 observed that the prosecution failed to bring any 'cogent evidence' and therfore requires court to extend the benefit of doubt to all accused.
Regarding charges against Sadhvi Pragya, the court observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the bike on which the bomb was allegedly strapped belonged to her.
Serial number of the chasis was not completely recovered by the forensic experts and therefore the prosecution failed to prove that the bike Infact belonged to her.
Moreover, Thakur had become a sanyasi and had left all material things two years before the blast.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to shortly address the felicitation function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
#SupremeCourt #CJI #felicitationceremony
SCBA President Vikas Singh addresses the ceremony
Vikas Singh: it’s a matter of privilege for me to do this for CJI Gavai. He was very reluctant to accept this function since he felt that a better occasion will be when he demits office and I speak about what he has done for the bar and for the institution rather than speak when he’s entering office.
Delhi High Court is hearing the petition filed by accused Mohd Javed challenging the release of the movie Udaipur Files.
The matter is being heard by Chief Justice Devendra kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy for petitioner Javed- 160 witnesses remain to be examined. I am entitled to fair trial under Art 21. First proposition is my right to fair trial is jeopardised by the relase of this movie.