The bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh was hearing a plea regarding the challenges faced by various tribunals, including the AFT, across India. The Court emphasized the need for additional benches to address the mounting caseload and avoid unnecessary travel for litigants.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Monday (6th Jan) addressed the heavy workload of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and suggested that additional circuit benches might be set up in various locations, including Shimla in Himachal Pradesh.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh was hearing a plea regarding the challenges faced by various tribunals, including the AFT, across India. The Court emphasized the need for additional benches to address the reduce caseload and avoid unnecessary travel for litigants.
The Supreme Court suggested, “See if there can be regional Bench. For Shimla etc., matters can go to Himachal,” offering the possibility of setting up more benches to serve those in remote areas.
As part of the proceedings, the Court asked the central government to consider establishing additional benches and to provide an update on the vacancies in the existing tribunals. The Court also directed the government to give details on the status of the ongoing selection process and stages of appointments for judicial positions in these tribunals.
“We have impressed upon Attorney General (AG) to furnish current status of different types of vacancies in different tribunals and details of ongoing selection process and status of stages of the process. We have also impressed upon Mr. Singh and others to give suggestions to AG regarding improving working conditions of tribunals and forming circuit Benches to provide easy access to justice. Let the suggestions be given under four weeks and let the matter be placed after six weeks,”
the Court ordered, emphasizing the urgency of filling vacancies and improving tribunal operations.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh raised concerns about the unfilled vacancies in tribunals. “One judge was transferred from Chandigarh and no one else was appointed,” Singh pointed out, highlighting the delay in filling positions.
In response, Justice Surya Kant remarked,
“Justice Sudhir Mittal (a former High Court judge who is now an AFT member) is from the same place and he has army background. He can be a good candidate,” acknowledging the suitability of potential candidates for filling the vacancies.
The Court also sought information from the government about the number of pending cases before the AFT and the need for more benches to address the growing caseload. The Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, responded by stating that administrative decisions regarding the setting up of circuit benches could be managed by the AFT chairman. He assured the Court that the government was already working to fill the existing vacancies.
“Chairman knows how to handle this. Work in the Chandigarh case is underway and will happen soon. We will give the chart as well .. Tribunal selection process happens throughout the year,” the AG said, trying to reassure the Court that the government was taking necessary actions.
The Court also acknowledged that the situation was not solely the fault of the government.
“No one is saying only Union is at fault. We can also think of a mechanism so that advance appointments are made before 6 months of retirement. For NCLAT, something like that is done. Mr. Singh you can also suggest some measures,” Justice Kant suggested, proposing that a proactive approach to appointments could help avoid delays in the future.
The Court then decided to continue the matter in six weeks, allowing time for the government to provide updates and for suggestions to be made regarding improving the tribunal system.
In addition to the discussion on vacancies and circuit benches, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar brought up a related issue concerning the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. This Act has been challenged on the grounds that it was designed to bypass the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Madras Bar Association cases, which had struck down certain provisions of the earlier law.
“There is a challenge to the Tribunal Reforms Act. Not a comma is changed of the Act which was struck down by this Court.
That is shocking,” Datar stated, expressing concern over the unchanged nature of the Act despite the Court’s previous ruling.
The Court, however, limited its response to advising the counsel to raise the issue before the appropriate bench, stating, “Please mention before CJI and wherever he lists, it will be heard,” indicating that the matter would be addressed by the Chief Justice of India when listed for hearing.
The case, which deals with significant issues regarding the functioning of tribunals and the administration of justice, will be revisited in six weeks, allowing time for the government to implement changes and improvements suggested by the Court.
Case Title: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
