2006 (1) TMI 627 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Clarifies Limited Judicial Review in CAT Appointments, Affirms Discretion and Consultation Process with CJI.

Union Of India & Ors Versus Kali Dass Batish & Anr.

Union Of India & Ors Versus Kali Dass Batish & Anr. - 2006 AIR 789, 2006 (1) SCR 261, 2006 (1) SCC 779, 2006 (1) JT 170, 2006 (1) SCALE 190 Issues Involved:1. Scope of judicial review in the appointment of a member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) made in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.2. Verification of antecedents by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) for candidates recommended for judicial posts.3. Right of candidates included in the selection list to be appointed.4. Judicial review of decisions taken by the Government of India and the Chief Justice of India.5. Allegations of mala fides in the non-appointment of candidates.Detailed Analysis:1. Scope of Judicial Review in the Appointment of CAT Members:The Supreme Court examined the extent of judicial review in the context of appointments to the CAT, emphasizing that such appointments, made in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, are not subject to routine judicial scrutiny. The Court underscored that the CAT is a tribunal with jurisdiction akin to a High Court, and therefore, the appointment process involves significant checks and balances, including the mandatory consultation with the Chief Justice of India, which is not a mere formality but a crucial safeguard ensuring the selection of suitable candidates.2. Verification of Antecedents by the Intelligence Bureau (IB):The Court highlighted the importance of verifying the antecedents of candidates recommended for judicial posts, particularly through the IB. This verification process includes assessing various factors such as political affiliations, integrity, and moral uprightness. The Court cited the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar to emphasize that even for lower posts like a constable, antecedent verification is critical, and this principle applies even more rigorously to judicial appointments like those to the CAT.3. Right of Candidates Included in the Selection List to be Appointed:The Court reiterated that mere inclusion in the selection list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The appointing authority retains the discretion to decide on appointments based on various criteria, including the IB report. This principle was supported by references to previous judgments, including Punjab State Electricity Board v. Malkiat Singh and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which clarified that selection does not guarantee appointment unless the relevant rules indicate otherwise.4. Judicial Review of Decisions by the Government and Chief Justice of India:The Court criticized the Himachal Pradesh High Court for overstepping its judicial review powers by interfering with the decision of the Union of India and the Chief Justice of India. The Court emphasized that the consultation with the Chief Justice of India is a robust mechanism ensuring the suitability of candidates, and it is not within the purview of the courts to second-guess this process. The Court endorsed the approach of the Jharkhand High Court, which correctly held that judicial review is not available in such matters and that inclusion in the selection list does not create a right to appointment.5. Allegations of Mala Fides:The Court dismissed the allegations of mala fides made by the respondents, noting that there was no substantial evidence to support such claims. The Court found that the decisions not to appoint the respondents were based on valid considerations, including the IB report, and were concurred with by the Chief Justice of India. The Court reiterated that the High Court should not have entertained unsubstantiated allegations of mala fides, especially when the Chief Justice of India had been involved in the consultation process.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had directed the reconsideration of the appointment of one of the respondents, and upheld the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, which had dismissed the writ petition challenging the non-appointment. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such appointments and the importance of the consultation process with the Chief Justice of India. The appeals against the Jharkhand High Court's judgment were dismissed, and the appeal by the Union of India against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment was allowed.