Delhi High Court dismisses plea filed by Lawyers’ Body challenging Railway Tribunal Chairperson’s re-appointment

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed the petition filed by a lawyers’ body with Rs. 50,000 costs. The plea challenged the reappointment of retired Justice K S Ahluwalia as Chairperson of the Railway Claims Tribunal. Court said that any attempt to vilify judges without any reasonable basis cannot be permitted.

The single judge bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh rejected the plea moved by Rail Dawa Bar Association seeking direction to the Central Government to lay down a fair and transparent selection procedure for appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman (Judicial), Vice Chairman (Technical), Member (Judicial), Members (Technical) in Railway Claims Tribunal.

The court said the petition filed by Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow, was a malafide attempt to throw mud on the reputation of the incumbent chairman and a gross abuse of process.

“In the opinion of this court, the entire attempt in this petition on behalf of the lawyers’ association is to raise aspersions against the duly constituted Tribunal. Accordingly, considering the nature of submissions made in court and in the pleadings, the writ petition is dismissed,” the court observed.

According to the association, a Selection Committee had prepared a list of candidates, and Justice Ajit Singh was selected for the appointment, but he declined, and Justice Ahluwalia was offered the post instead there being other applicants.

On the other hand, the Centre argued that the appointment was made by nomination by the then Chief Justice of India, and Justice Ahluwalia was appointed in 2019 after the Lokayukta of Odisha declined the appointment. A search and selection committee was also constituted, which suggested a panel of two judges to the Government, including the name of Justice Ahluwalia, which was accepted and notified, Centre submitted.

However, the petitioner said that the manner in which the committee did the “search” was a “slap on the face of the term search and throwing all norms and principles to the winds and acting like an autocrat.”

Taking exceptions to the submissions, the court said that the rejoinder filed by the petitioner “smacked of sensationalism” and used a completely “unbecoming language.”

“Wild allegations are made by the Petitioner without verification of facts or law. The intention appears to be simply to besmirch various individuals for some inexplicable reason, rather than to raise grounds within the confines of law. The entire process which has been explained in the counter affidavit shows that all the requisite safeguards have been followed and the appointment process has been done in accordance with the applicable Act and Rules," the court observed.

Case Title: Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow vs. Union of India & Ors.