- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Alters Directions on Constitution of Search-Cum-Selection Committee Established For Appointment of Tribunal Members
Supreme Court Alters Directions on Constitution of Search-Cum-Selection Committee Established For Appointment of Tribunal Members The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat, allowed Centre's request to modify a direction, by substituting the 'Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court Alters Directions on Constitution of Search-Cum-Selection Committee Established For Appointment of Tribunal Members
The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat, allowed Centre's request to modify a direction, by substituting the 'Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India nominated by the Cabinet Secretary from a Department other than the parent or sponsoring department'
The SC in the case of Madras Bar Association v. Union of India has modified its direction given through an order passed on 27 November 2020 regarding the constitution of Search Cum Selection Committee for Appointment of Tribunal Members.
A Miscellaneous Application was filed for clarification of the judgment of the Top Court. Mr. K. K. Venugopal (Attorney General) submitted that the direction that is given in para 53(ii) of the judgment regarding constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee needs modification. Mr. Arvind Datar, the Amicus Curiae did not object to the demand of such modification.
Para 53(vi) of the judgment dealt with the eligibility of Advocates for appointment as Judicial Members in the Tribunals. Advocates with 10 years' experience were held to be eligible for appointment as Judicial Members and are entitled for re-appointment for at least one term by giving preference to the service rendered by them.
It was further submitted that the Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India who is made a member of the Search-cum-Selection Committee should be substituted by a Secretary to the Government of India nominated by the Cabinet Secretary from a Department other than the parent or sponsoring department.
It was further urged by the Attorney General that there are Nineteen Tribunals and it will be difficult for the Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice to act as a Member of every Search-cum-Selection Committee which might hinder his other duties.
It was suggested by him that the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee should be changed and the Cabinet Secretary may be permitted to nominate two Secretaries to the Government of India from a Department other than the parent or sponsoring department instead of Secretary to Ministry of Law and Justice and another Secretary for a Department other than the parent or sponsoring department.
It was also recommended that the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall consist of-
a. The Chief Justice of India or his nominee-Chairperson (with a casting vote);
b. The out-going Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal in case of appointment of the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal (or) the sitting Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal in case of appointment of other Members of the Tribunal,
(or)
It may also consist of a retired Judge of the SC or a retired Chief Justice of theHC in case the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal is not a judicial member or if the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal is seeking re-appointment of Member;
c. Two Secretaries to the Government of India nominated by the Cabinet Secretary from a Department other than the parent or sponsoring department- Members;
d. Secretary to the sponsoring or parent Ministry or Department- Member Secretary/Convener (without a vote).
The SC directed the Union of India, to place on record the particulars of the members of the Tribunals working in different cities/towns and the amounts paid to them as House Rent Allowance (HRA). Details of the accommodation provided to the members of the Tribunal shall also be provided.
The Union of India is also directed to submit a proposal as to what amount would be reasonable towards HRA in case accommodation cannot be provided to members of the Tribunal.
The matter is listed on 15 February 2021 for further consideration.