Akanksha Singh –
Published on: September 12, 2021 at 12:06 IST
Five days after the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over the way the Centre has implemented the Tribunal Reforms Act, the Centre on Saturday approved the appointment of judicial and technical members by diluting the conditions of members and chairpersons of Tribunals – Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
These appointments are for a period of 4 years or till these members attain the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier.
Further it has allowed the proposal for the appointment of 18 members in the NCLT – eight judicial members and 10 technical members.
The Centre stated that these appointments are for a term of five years or till the age of 65 years of these members, whichever is earlier. It also appointed 13 new judicial members within ITAT – six judicial members and 7 accountants.
However 4 judicial members have been removed from the unreserved category, one from the Other Backward Class (OBC) category and one from the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. 5 Accountant members are from unreserved category, one from OBC category and one from Supreme Court category.
The judicial members are Sonjoy Sharma (Advocate), S Seethalakshmi, (advocate), Shatin Goyal (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Anubhav Sharma (Additional District and Sessions Judge), TR Senthil Kumar (Advocate) and Manomohan Das (Law officer in SBI).
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition on September 6 by Congress chief and MP Jairam Ramesh and others challenging the constitutional validity of the compounded provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
Further the CJI asked to Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta “There is no respect for the judgments of this Court. It is unfortunate. Last time you (the Solicitor General) have said that you have appointed some members in the tribunals. How many you have appointed.”
The prime court had then said that the suggestions have been made keeping in mind all the parameters. It also warns that “If the appointments were not made within a week, it could lead to contempt of court proceedings against the Centre.”
Further the Apex Court had also mentioned that the “Centre has no respect for judgments of the highest court.”
The Apex Court had also warned of contempt action if the Centre continued to “lax” in the appointment of chairpersons and members of the tribunal.