ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION BENGALURU versus ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA AND ANR

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 17-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
575
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 575
575
ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION BENGALURU
v.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA AND ANR
(Contempt Petition (C) No 708 of 2021)
In
WP (C) No 502 of 2021
MAY 17, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
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 –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
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.
INHERENT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil) No.708
of 2021.
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No.502 of 2021.
From the Order dated 14.07.2021 of this Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.502 of 2021.
K. K. Venugopal, AG, Tushar Mehta, SG, K. M. Nataraj, Balbir
Singh, ASGs, Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), R. Basant, Anil Kumar
Sangal, Sr. Advs., Rahul Unnikrishnan, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas,
Naveen Hegde, Mahesh Thakur, Ajay Kanojiya, Vipasha Singh, Akshay
Sahay, Kanu Agrawal, Saurabh Mishra, Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Priyanka
Das, Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Ankur Talwar, Rajat Nair, Siddhanth Kohli,
Ms. Suhashini Sen, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Zoheb Hossain, Arvind
Kumar Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Kartik Seth, Ms. Shriya Gilhotra,
Ms. Garima Saxena, Sahil Nagpal for M/s Chambers of Kartik Seth,
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Sakti Singh, Anmol Srivastav, Ms. Urvashi Arya,
Jasmeet Singh, Rupesh Kumar, Tarun Gupta, Siddharth Sangal, Ms.
Nilanjani Tandon, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Vikas Jain, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
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.
1 “ITAT”
2“SCSC”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
577
3. On 21 September 2019, the SCSC recommended the names of
41 persons for appointment as members of the ITAT. The reply which
has been filed by the Secretary to the Department of Legal Affairs
indicates that the SCSC had recommended 28 persons (16 as Judicial
Members and 12 as Accountant Members) in the main list and an
additional 13 persons in the wait list. The recommendations were received
by the Department of Legal Affairs on 3 October 2019 and were
submitted on 16 October 2019 for consideration and approval of the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet3. The ACC approved 13
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.