Why candidate recommended by judge-led panel not appointed as TDSAT member: SC asks Centre

New Delhi, May 4

Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to explain as to why a candidate recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was not appointed as a member of the Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

“The court must be apprised of the reasons which weighed with the government for not appointing the applicant in pursuant to the vacancy notified in May 2020…the relevant files may be produced before the court,” a Bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud told Attorney General KK Venugopal.

“We want to know why he was overlooked. As per the memorandum of the procedure after the recommendation, a report of the Intelligence Bureau is being taken into account. Now to avoid such a lengthy process we shortlist only those candidates who have been cleared by IB. So now every recommendation is IB cleared. Then too, if a candidate is overlooked, there have to be some valid reasons,” the Bench said.

The Attorney General said that he would produce the relevant records and submitted a note which stated the names were pending with the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet.

The top court’s observation came after senior advocate Vikas Singh said despite the Search-cum-Selection Committee headed by Supreme Court Judge LN Rao recommending his name, the candidate was not appointed.

There was a vacancy for two members in 2020 but only one was appointed despite the recommendation for two applicants, the Bench noted.

The top court was hearing an application filed by a retired accountant member in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), alleging that his non-selection for the post in TDSAT was completely illegal, unconstitutional, and arbitrary.

Recently, the Centre cleared the appointment of former Delhi High Court Chief Justice DN Patel as chairperson and also cleared the appointment of one member and there remained a vacancy of one member.

Venugopal defended ‘The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021’ and said often the top court’s judgments waded “into the policy domain” and that it should keep in mind separation of powers.

On September 6 last year, the court had termed the provisions in the new law on tribunals “replica” of those struck down by it earlier. Though the government has the power to take away the basis of a judgment by making new laws, it cannot be “directly contradictory” to the top court’s verdicts, it had said.

However, the Bench said it would hear the arguments on the validity of the Act in July.