Advocate Association Bengaluru vs Anoop Kumar Mendiratta and Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

17 May 2022

Case No.

Contempt Petition (C) No 708 of 2021

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Citation

[2022] 3 S.C.R. 575 : 2022 INSC 582

Headnote

Contempt of court: Contempt jurisdiction – Exercise of – Contempt proceedings relating to appointments to the Income Tax Appellate tribunal – Search cum Selection Committee-SCSC chaired by Supreme Court judge recommended names of 41 persons for appointment as Judicial Members and Accountant Members of ITAT,

28 persons in the main list and an additional 13 persons in the wait list – Appointments Committee of the Cabinet-ACC approved 22 candidates, 16 persons from the main list and 6 from the wait list, and 19 persons remain to be appointed – Petitioners case that in making its selection, the ACC placed reliance on certain reports and feedback obtained subsequent to the recommendations of the SCSC, none of which have been placed before the SCSC – Held: Candidates who are recommended by the SCSC are those who had been cleared by the IB after verifying their credentials, integrity, character and other relevant aspects – As a general practice, all inputs bearing on the candidature of each prospective applicant under consideration, whether the inputs emanate from the IB or from any other source, ought to be placed by the Union Government on the record of the SCSC in advance, before the recommendations are formulated – SCSC would then be in a position to determine as to whether any modification of its original recommendation is necessitated – This can happen only in exceptional situations – Hence, all such inputs, as are available with the Government, must be placed before the SCSC in advance – Thus, the feedback tabulated in the file note before the competent authority to be placed before the SCSC so as to enable it to consider whether any modification in the terms of its recommendations is warranted – Union Government to carry out the said exercise within the stipulated period and thereafter, would process the recommendations of the SCSC and would apprise the court – In view thereof, it is not expedient to pursue the contempt proceedings – Contempt Petition however, to be re-numbered as interlocutory application – Vacancies in the ITAT to be duly filled.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The contempt proceedings relate to appointments to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1. 2. On 6 July 2018, an advertisement was issued for 37 vacant posts in the ITAT. Of them, 21 were for Judicial Members and 16 for Accountant Members. The selection process was set in motion. The Search cum Selection Committee2 was chaired by Hon’ble Mr Justice A M Khanwilkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India. “ITAT” “SCSC” MENDIRATTAAND ANR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.] 3. On 21 September 2019, the SCSC recommended the nam

View Subscription Plans →