Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern over irregularities in the appointment and posting of members to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) benches across India, particularly highlighting the absence of full-time judicial and technical members at the Indore bench.
‘There's an application filed by High Court Bar Association, Indore... it's disturbing... it says no full time judicial/technical member is posted at the NCLT Indore bench...(we) don't want to make it part of judicial order today. (But) something needs to be done to regulate transfers and postings in NCLT. There's a very deep problem,’ a bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh orally remarked to Attorney General R Venkataramani during a hearing on a batch of petitions concerning vacancies and appointments in various tribunals.
The court's observation came in response to an application filed by the High Court Bar Association, Indore, which alleged that the NCLT bench in the city is functioning without any full-time judicial or technical members.
While the apex court refrained from making these remarks part of its official order, it emphasised the urgency of the issue and directed the Union government and the President of NCLT to explore the posting of at least one judicial and one technical member at the Indore bench. A compliance report is to be submitted.
The SC had earlier directed the Centre to collate data on appointments and the selection process for all categories of tribunal members — judicial, technical, accounting and administrative. One of the key petitions under consideration is a public interest litigation filed by the Madras Bar Association.
Responding to the bench, the AG said the situation regarding tribunal vacancies was improving and sought additional time to present updated details before the Court. The matter has been re-listed to allow further discussions and submissions.
The Court also referred to a separate application filed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, which called for extending the retirement age of tribunal members to 62 years. Justice Kant supported the demand stating, ‘They are justified in saying this, that order we have already passed.’ The AG informed the bench that efforts are underway to complete the necessary appointments by December, ahead of expected retirements.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar was asked to submit a report focusing on the structure and superannuation norms of commercial tribunals. The bench noted confusion due to differing retirement ages and emphasised that the conditions of service for members appointed under the previous legal regime cannot be altered retroactively. ‘They are entitled to continue till [the age of] 62,’ Justice Kant affirmed.
Previously, the court also invited suggestions from senior advocate Vikas Singh and other members of the Bar to aid the AG in reforming tribunal operations. Among the ideas floated was the establishment of Circuit Benches to improve access to justice. Justice Kant further suggested implementing an advance selection process for tribunal members, similar to the approach followed by the NCLAT, to ensure smoother transitions upon retirement.
