In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the appointment of “experienced” advocates to fill vacancies in Armed Forces Tribunals (AFT) across the country. The case, titled Ishan Gill vs. Union of India, was brought before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Also read-Transgender Teacher Moves Supreme Court Alleging Termination Of Services. (lawchakra.in)
The petitioner highlighted a significant concern, pointing out that out of the seventeen benches in the Armed Forces Tribunals, only four were operational in 2021. This limited operation was struggling under the weight of approximately 19,000 pending cases. The plea, filed under Article 32, specifically requested the appointment of advocates with at least ten years of practice as judicial members to fill all the vacant positions throughout the AFT.
However, the Supreme Court bench, led by CJI Chandrachud, was not inclined to entertain the matter. Emphasizing the existing appointment process, CJI Chandrachud noted that the process is open to all lawyers and that the presiding committees overseeing these appointments are headed by Supreme Court judges. He stated,
“Your petition is wrong. We cannot just say appoint experienced advocates. We have explained ourselves. Dismissed.”
Also read-Public Interest Litigation Challenges New Criminal Code Laws In Supreme Court. (lawchakra.in)
CJI Chandrachud further remarked,
“But your relief is wrong. You can’t say that just appoint advocates to fill up all the empty positions, that can’t be done. There is a selection process which has to be followed.”
He also mentioned that interested candidates could apply when the selection process begins.
This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s stance on maintaining a structured and open selection process for appointments to the Armed Forces Tribunals. The dismissal of this PIL reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to a systematic approach in filling vacancies, ensuring that the process remains fair and accessible to all eligible advocates, rather than exclusively favoring those with specific experience levels.
Also read- Supreme Court Petition Challenges New Law On Appointment Of Election Commissioners (lawchakra.in)