1. PIL challenging the appointment of the President of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) and alleging institutional malfunctioning. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 536
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.*
R.K. Jain, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. Nos. 90 of 1992 with 312 of 1993
Decided on 14-5-1993.
Important Points
The Court held that the government cannot claim blanket immunity for Cabinet documents. It must balance public interest in secrecy against the administration of justice. Article 74(2) protects only the actual advice tendered to the President, not the underlying records, which remain subject to judicial review.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
CEGAT MEMBERS RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE RULES: R.10
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.75, Art.78, Art.323(a), Art.77, Art.74(2), Art.142(2), Art.32, Sch.3, Art.226
CUSTOMS ACT: S.130, S.129(b)
EVIDENCE ACT: S.162, S.124, S.123
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.75, Art.78, Art.323(a), Art.77, Art.74(2), Art.142(2), Art.32, Sch.3, Art.226
CUSTOMS ACT: S.130, S.129(b)
EVIDENCE ACT: S.162, S.124, S.123
Headnote
Evidence Act – Sections 123 and 124 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 74(2) - Constitutional and jurisprudential – Appeal Against Conviction - Appointment as President - Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (for short the CEGAT) was without a President for the last over six months the functioning of Tribunal was adversely affected in that Benches sit for hardly two hours or so sittings commence late at about there is a tendency to adjourn cases on one pretext other so much so that even passing of interim orders like stay orders etc is postponed and inordinately delayed and general tendency is to work for only four days in a week - Work culture is just not there and environmental degradation that has taken place is reflected in letter of who prematurely resigned as President of the CEGAT - Lastly he says that there were nearly appeals and approximately stay petitions pending in the CEGAT involving revenue worth crores of rupees which will remain blocked for long - Held, Judicial review and remedy are fundamental rights of citizens dispensation of justice by tribunals is much to be desired - Court are not doubting the ability of the members or Vice-Chairmen (non-Judges) who may be experts in their regular service - But judicial adjudication is a special process and would efficiently be administered by advocate Judges - Remedy of appeal by special leave under Art. 136 to this Court also proved to be costly and prohibitive and far-flung distance too is working as constant constraint to litigant public who could ill afford to reach this court - An appeal to a Bench of two Judges of the respective High Courts over orders of tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction on - Questions of law would assuage a growing feeling of injustice of those who can ill afford to approach SC - Equally the need for recruitment of members of Bar to man Tribunals as well as the working system by tribunals need fresh look and regular monitoring is necessary - Order accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
A.S.BHASME, Abha Jain, B.PARTHASARTHY, C.S.S.RAO, C.V.SUBBA RAO, CHAVA BADRI NATH BABU, D.D.THAKUR, D.P.GUPTA, G.RAMASVAMY, Gaurav Jain, K.K.VENUGOPAL, M.L.Verma, PALLAV SHISHODIA, R.K.JAIN, R.P.GUPTA, RANJAN MUKHERJEE, TAPAS RAY
A.S.BHASME, Abha Jain, B.PARTHASARTHY, C.S.S.RAO, C.V.SUBBA RAO, CHAVA BADRI NATH BABU, D.D.THAKUR, D.P.GUPTA, G.RAMASVAMY, Gaurav Jain, K.K.VENUGOPAL, M.L.Verma, PALLAV SHISHODIA, R.K.JAIN, R.P.GUPTA, RANJAN MUKHERJEE, TAPAS RAY
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner challenged the appointment as violating conventions; government claimed public interest immunity over appointment records under the Evidence Act and Constitution. (Para 3 , 11 , 21 , 62 )
3. The court analyzed the balance between public interest immunity and the administration of justice, emphasizing that judicial review ensures executive powers are exercised lawfully. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 47 , 56 , 57 , 66 , 67 , 70 , 72 )
4. Article 74(2) protects only the actual advice tendered to the President, not the records upon which such advice is based, which remain subject to judicial review. (Para 56 , 58 )
5. Appointment upheld as the candidate was qualified; directions issued for an inquiry into tribunal malfunctioning and a comprehensive study by the Law Commission. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 75 , 76 , 77 )
6. Does Article 74(2) of the Constitution provide absolute immunity for all records related to advice given to the President?
No. The bar of judicial review is confined to the factum of the advice—its extent, ambit, and scope. It does not extend to the records or material on which the advice is founded, which are open to in camera inspection by the court. (Para 56 , 58 )
7. How does the court determine whether to grant public interest immunity for the non-disclosure of state documents?
The court balances the public interest in protecting the state or public service against the public interest in the administration of justice. Blanket immunity for class documents is generally rejected unless it involves national security, diplomatic relations, or internal security. (Para 16 , 17 , 46 , 56 )
8. Can the court interfere with the executive's choice of a person for appointment as a Tribunal President if the person is qualified?
No. If the person chosen possesses the prescribed qualifications and is otherwise eligible under the rules, the court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the government's choice in the appointment. (Para 6 , 73 )
9. What is the significance of judicial expertise in the composition of appellate tribunals?
Judicial independence and expertise are essential for the efficacy of the rule of law. Tribunals should be manned by persons with legal training and judicial experience to ensure public confidence and proper adjudication of complex legal questions. (Para 67 , 68 , 70 , 71 )
JUDGMENT
AHMADI, J.—(for himself and on behalf of M. M. Punchhi, J.) :- We have had the benefit of the industry, erudition and exposition of the constitutional and jurisprudential aspects of law on the various questions urged before us in the judgment of our esteemed Brother K. Ramaswamy, J. But while concurring with the hereinafter mentioned conclusions recorded by him we would like to say a few words to explain our points of view. Since the facts have been set out in detail by our learned Brother we would rest content by giving an abridged preface which we consider necessary.
2. It all began with the receipt of a letter dated December 26, 1991, from Shri R. K. Jain, Editor, Excise Law Times, addressed to the then Chief Justice of India, Shri M. H. Kania, J., complaining that as the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (for short the CEGAT) was without a President for the last over six months the functioning of the Tribunal was adversely affected, in that, the Benches sit for hardly two hours or so, the sittings commence late at about 10.50 a.m., there is a tendency to 1774 adjourn cases on one pretext or the. other so much so that even passing of interim orders, like stay orders, etc. is postponed and inordinately delayed, and the general tendency is to work for only four days in a week. The work culture is just not there and the environmental degradation that has taken place is reflected in the letter of Shri G. Sankaran dated June 3, 1991 who prematurely resigned as the President of the CEGAT. Lastly, he says that there were nearly 42,000 appeals and approximately 2000 stay petitions pending in the CEGAT involving revenue worth crores of rupees, which will remain blocked for long. Three directions were sought, namely,
"(i) the immediate appointment of the President to the CEGAT, preferably a senior High Court Judge;
(ii) order an enquiry into the mal-functioning of the CEGAT; and
(iii) issue all other directions as your Lordship may deem fit and necessary."
3. This letter was directed to be treated as public Interest Litigation and notice was issued to the Union of India restricted to relief No. (i) i.e. in regard to the appointment of the President of the CEGAT. On April 29, 1992, the learned Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that the appointment of the President was made. On the next date of hearing the relevant file on which the decision regarding appointment was made was produced in a sealed envelope in Court which we directed to be kept in safe custody as apprehension was expressed that the file may be tampered with. The focus which was initially on the working of the CEGAT and in particular against the conduct and behaviour of one of its Members now shifted to the legality and validity of the appointment of respondent No. 3 as its President. Serious allegations were made against respondent No. 3 and his competence to hold the post was questioned. It was contended that his appointment was made in violation of the Rules and convention found mentioned in the message of Shri Y. V. Chandrachud, the then Chief Justice of India, dated October 5, 1992 forwarded on the occasion of the inauguration of the CEGAT. The further allegation made is that even though High Court Judges were available no serious attempt was made to requisition the services of one of them for appointment as President of the CEGAT. To put a quietus to the entire matter at an early date we called the file from the Registry on May 4, 1992 but when we were about to peruse the same the learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the Court cannot inspect it because he desired to claim privilege. We, therefore, directed that a formal application may be made in that behalf before the next date of hearing and returned the file to enable the making of such an application. Accordingly, the then Finance Secretary filed an affidavit claiming privilege under Ss. 123 and 124, Evidence Act, and Article 74(2) of the Constitution. The Minis
