1. Appointment of members to Tribunals and Commissions — Constitution of a committee to oversee the appointment process. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 486
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Rojer Mathew – Petitioners
Versus
South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No.15804 of 2017
Decided On : 16-05-2018
Important Points
The court clarified the qualifications for appointment to Tribunals/Commissions and allowed for flexibility in the appointment of judges to prevent Tribunals/Commissions from remaining headless.
Subject
Administrative Law - Tribunals and Commissions
Headnote
Appointment - Tribunals - Qualification of Judges
Fact of the Case:
The court directed the constitution of a committee to address the issue of appointment of judges to Tribunals/Commissions.
Finding of the Court:
The court clarified the qualifications required for appointment to a Tribunal/Commission and directed the government to constitute a committee within a specified timeframe.
Issues: Qualification for appointment to Tribunals/Commissions, Constitution of the Committee, Petitioner's Grievance
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that a former Judge of the Supreme Court need not have worked in a Tribunal, and allowed the appointment of a suitable former Judge of a High Court if no former Chief Justice or Supreme Court Judge is available.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was disposed of as withdrawn, and the petitioner was given liberty to move the High Court again if aggrieved by the order passed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Arvind P. Datar, Sr.Adv. (A.C.), Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Anubhav Anand Pandey, Krishnadas Villadath, Suchindran B.N., Mr.R. Chandrashekar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Advs.
For the Respondents:- K.K. Venugopal, AG, Maninder Singh, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, Sr.Adv., R. Balasubramanian, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Prabhas Bajaj, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, P. I. Jose, Ms. P.S. Chandralekha, Shashank Mishra, Advs.
For the Petitioners: Arvind P. Datar, Sr.Adv. (A.C.), Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Anubhav Anand Pandey, Krishnadas Villadath, Suchindran B.N., Mr.R. Chandrashekar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Advs.
For the Respondents:- K.K. Venugopal, AG, Maninder Singh, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, Sr.Adv., R. Balasubramanian, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Prabhas Bajaj, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, P. I. Jose, Ms. P.S. Chandralekha, Shashank Mishra, Advs.
Table of Contents
2. Necessity of preventing Tribunals from remaining headless justifies temporary appointment of former High Court Judges when higher judicial qualifications are unavailable. (Para 3 )
3. Former High Court Judges may be appointed to Tribunal/Commission leadership roles in the absence of suitable former Chief Justices or Supreme Court Judges. (Para 3 )
4. Committee constitution left to Government; petitioner's SLP disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach High Court. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 )
5. Can a former High Court Judge be appointed to a Tribunal if the required qualification is a former Chief Justice or Supreme Court Judge?
Yes, if no suitable person from the required category is available, a suitable former High Court Judge may be appointed to ensure the Tribunal or Commission does not remain headless, pending legislative amendment. (Para 3 )
6. Is prior experience in a Tribunal mandatory for a former Supreme Court Judge to be part of the appointment committee?
No, the court clarified that a former Judge of the Supreme Court is not required to have worked in a Tribunal to be part of the committee. (Para 2 )
ORDER
In continuation of Order dated 7th May, 2018, we have further heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General, and learned amicus, Mr. Arvind P. Datar.
2. In terms of order dated 7th May, 2018, we direct that a committee be constituted. We, however, clarify that a former Judge of this Court need not have worked in a Tribunal as earlier directed.
3. We further direct that wherever qualification required for appointment to a Tribunal/Commission is of a former Chief Justice or a former Supreme Court Judge, and no suitable person of that category is available, it will be open to make appointment of any suitable former Judge of a High Court till any legislative amendment in that regard is brought out so that a Tribunal/Commission may not remain headless.
4. Subject to above, the constitution of the Committee is left to the Government. The Committee may be constituted within two months and may give its report within three months thereafter. Union of India may take a call thereon and take such further action as found appropriate. An affidavit of further developments be filed in this Court by 31st October, 2018. Learned amicus will be at liberty to put forward his view-point before the said Committee.
5. List again on 13th November, 2018 to consider any further direction.
6. As far as the petitioner is concerned, we have not examined the merit of his grievance. We give him liberty to move the High Court again. The matter be considered by the High Court on its merit in accordance with law. The special leave petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
7. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the order which may be passed by the High Court, he will be at liberty to take his remedy in accordance with law including filing a petition in this court.
