UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KALI DASS BA TISH AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 05-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-+ 
t I 
f 
r 
) 
)', 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
KALI DASS BA TISH AND ANR. 
JANUARY 5, 2006 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND 
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 226 & 32 3A-Central 
Administrative Tribunal-Appointment of judicial member-Candidates 
recommended by Selection Committee chaired by a nominee of Chief Justice 
of lndia(CJI). not appointed considering their antecedents as reported by the 
Intelligence Bureau(IB)-Decision of non-appointment made in consultation 
with the CJI-Scope of judicial review on the decision-Held: Judicial review 
was impermissible-Parliament having reposed faith in the CJ/ as the 
paterfamilias of judicial hierarchy, it is not open for anyone to contend that 
the CJ/ might have given his concurrence without application of mind-
Administrative Tribunals Act. 1985-Sections 4, 6 and 7. 
First and Second Respondent were amongst the candidates 
recommended for appointment as Judicial Members of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal by a Selection Committee chaired by a nominee 
of the Chief Justice of India- a sitting Supreme Court Judge. However, 
they were not appointed considering their antecedents as reported by the 
Intelligence Bureau(IB). The decision of non-appointment was made in 
consultation with the Chief Justice of India. 
The said Respondents filed writ petitions challenging their non-
appointment before High Court, First Respondent before the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court and Second Respondent before the Jharkhand High 
Court. The Jharkhand High Court declined to grant ~elief holding that 
there was no scope for judicial review in such matters, but the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court allow~d the writ petition filed before it and directed 
the Union Government to consider afresh the case of First Respondent. 
Hence, the Union Government filed appeal before this Court against the 
judgment of H.imachal Pradesh. The judgment of Jharkhand High Court 
too was appealed against before this Court in a separate group of appeals. 
261 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20061 I S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal against the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High 
B 
Court while dismissing the appeals against the judgment of Jharkhand 
High Court, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has acted in the 
matter as if dealing with an appointment made by an executive officer. 
1.2. CAT is a Tribunal constituted under Article 323A of the 
Constitution and is expected to have the same jurisdiction as that of a High 
Court. Consequently, Parliament has taken great care to enact, vide 
Sections 6 and 7 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, that no 
appointment of a person possessing the qualifications prescribed in the 
C Act as a Member shall be made, except after consultation with the Chief 
Justice of India. The consultation with the Chief Justice of India i.s neither 
a routine matter nor an idle formality. [268-E-F[ 
1.3. A member of an Administrative Tribunal like the CAT exercises 
vast judicial powers, and such member must be ensured absolute judicial 
D independence, free from influences of any kind likely to interfere with 
independent judicial functioning or militate thereagainst. It is for this 
reason that a policy decision had been taken by the Government of India 
that while considering members of the Bar for appointment to such a post, 
their antecedents have to be verified by the 18. The antecedents would 
E include various facts like association with anti-social elements, unlawful 
organizations, political affiliations, integrity of conduct and moral 
uprightness. All these factors have necessarily to be verified before a 
decision is taken by the appointing authority to appoint a candidate to a 
sensitive post like Member of the CAT. [268-F-H; 269-AI 
F 
1.4. Sub-section (7) to Section 6 of the Act requires that, the 
appointment of a Member of the CAT cannot be made "except after 
consultation with the Chief Justice of India". This consultation should, of 
course, be an effective consultation after all necessary papers are laid 
before the Chief Justice of India, and is the virtual guarantee for 
appointment of absolutely suitable candidates to the post. 
G 
Delhi Administration v. Sushi/ Kumar. [1996[ 11 SCC 605, relied on. 
[26A-AI 
2.1. Unfortunately, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh seems to 
have proceeded on the footing that the appointment was being made on 
H its own by the Central Government a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.