[Tribunal vacancies] Sending govt officials to jail for contempt of court not solution: CJI NV Ramana

Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana on Thursday reiterated that the top court will consider plea relating to vacancies in various tribunals across the country..The CJI, however, said that sending government officials to jail for contempt of court for non-appointment of tribunal members, will not be a solution to the problem. "Should I call the govt today only and send them to jail? Will they then appoint people? Have some patience. I took this up yesterday and we will take it up," the CJI told a counsel who made a mention regarding vacancies at Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).The Court had on Wednesday expressed its displeasure at what it considered as "knee-jerk" appointments by the Central government to fill up vacancies in tribunals across the country.A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had said during the hearing that the bureaucracy is taking the issue "lightly"."We are getting [requests for] extension of time for NCLT matters etc. Some knee jerk appointments took place and nothing after that. We don't know the fate of members and many are retiring. Bureaucracy is taking it lightly."When Attorney General for India KK Venugopal had offered to show the list of vacancies, CJI Ramana had said,"No, no we may have to pass orders after hearing it now."The case will now be heard on February 23, 2022..A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has been frequently pulling up the government for its lackadaisical approach towards tribunals.Also contributing to the friction is the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 passed by the parliament laying down the tenures and other service conditions of tribunal members.Many of the provisions of the Act run contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court judgment regarding tenures of service of tribunal members.The Supreme Court had on July 14 struck down the newly inserted Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 (Ordinance) to the extent that it fixed the tenure of members and chairperson of tribunals at 4 years.The top court had ruled that Section 184(11) of the Finance Act, which prescribes a tenure of four years for members, was contrary to the principles of separation of powers, independence of judiciary, rule of law and Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the judgment of the apex court in the Madras Bar Association III case."Consequently, the declaration of this Court in para 53(iv) of (the judgment in) Madras Bar Association-III shall prevail and the term of Chairperson of a Tribunal shall be five years or till she or he attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier and the term of Member of a Tribunal shall be five years or till she or he attains the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier," the Supreme Court had ordered.However, as per Section 5 of the new Bill, the term of office of the Chairperson of a tribunal shall be four years or till the person attains age of 70, whichever is earlier. Similarly, for members of tribunals, the tenure has been prescribed as four years or till he/she attains 67 years, whichever is earlier.