Minimum age criteria for NCLT appointments challenged by Petition

Shivani Gadhavi –

Published on: November 05, 2021 at 16:45 IST

A Plea has been filed by Advocate Nipun Praveen Singhvi, which challenges the minimum age limit of ‘not less than 50 years’ set under Section 413 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 as a criterion for the appointment of judicial members in the National Company Law Tribunals.

The Plea also questions a notification issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs which calls upon applications for recruiting judicial members in the NCLT from different states.

On November 2nd, 2021, the Petitioner also pleaded that such appointments be undertaken by the Law Ministry instead of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

Advocate Singhvi mentions the case of Madras Bar Association Judgment (2021) LL 2021 SC 296 wherein the Supreme Court has stressed the need to appoint younger members in tribunals to strengthen their functioning. 

In the Madras Bar Association Case, the Supreme Court stated that Lawyers and Advocates under or near the age of 45 years can look at cases with fresh perspectives.

In his Petition, Advocate Singhvi refers to Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President of Madras Bar Association [NCLT Judgment] and correlates it with the NCLT judgement whereby the Supreme Court already held that the minimum age limit of 50 years for appointment of tribunal members is “illegal and arbitrary” since the tribunal is entrusted with “intrinsic judicial functions on the specialised and complex subject of law.”

Therefore, the Petitioner states that the advertisement for filling up the nine vacancies in NCLT is violative of Articles 13, 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution. The Petitioner sought to pass a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ or Order declaring Section 413 (2) as unconstitutional, non-est and contrary to the Madras Bar Association.

The Petitioner, Advocate Singhvi, also wants the court to negate the impugned advertisement for filling up NCLT vacancies and to grant interim relief by staying the operation and execution of the aforementioned notification in question, pending the final decision in the case.

Related Post