Madras Bae Association DRAFT

The Supreme Court on Wednesday

A bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Surya Kant

The bench was hearing plea regarding appointments at the vacant positions in various Tribunals and challenging the recent Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned Act has legislated the same provisions which were struck down by the Top Court in the Madras Bar Association Case, decided by the bench.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had asked Central Government to expedite Tribunal Appointments and come back before with an affirmation on the appointments to Tribunals.

Whereas, over the issue of appointment Justice Ramana had said, "We have seen the NCLT list selection committee recommended 9 Judicial Members and 10 Technical Members and the appointment letters was issued to 3 names from the waitlist ignoring others in select list. What kind of appointment is this?",

To which Attorney General KK Venugopal responded, "Milords, we exhaust the recommendation list and then go to the wait list."

Justice Ramana upset from the appointments said, "We traveled across the country wasted our time, during pandemic we interviewed, you selected 2 High Court Judge who are already 62 now 2 years you have wasted, now who will join."

"At the NCDRC where I was there, there also list was truncated," Justice Chandrachud added to the contention of Justice Ramana.

However, over the request of Venugopal, the Court has allowed two weeks time to the Central Government to make appointments and submit explanation for the appointments which in case are not made.

Case Title: Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Anr.