Tribunal appointment validity upheld where interim directions governed pre-2020 appointments and selection followed existing rules.

The Madras HC held that the Vice President's appointment to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not invalid merely because it was made on 22.01.2020. Reading the Supreme Court's interim directions in the tribunal reform litigation with the parent Acts and Rules, the Court found that those directions were intended to govern all appointments made before the 2020 Rules came into force. The Selection Committee minutes also showed that the appointment process followed those interim directions and applied the then-existing statutory framework. The challenge therefore failed and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appointment of the Vice President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal made on 22.01.2020 was invalid because it was not in accordance with the interim directions issued in the tribunal reform litigation and the applicable parent Acts and Rules.

Analysis: The challenge rested on the contention that the interim directions in the tribunal reform proceedings applied only to appointments made while those proceedings were pending. The Court read the relevant passages from the Supreme Court decisions together and held that the interim directions were expressly intended to govern all appointments made before the 2020 Rules came into force. The minutes of the Search-cum-Selection Committee also showed that the committee acted in accordance with those interim directions and treated the old Act and the then-existing Rules as governing the appointment.

Conclusion: The appointment was covered by the applicable interim directions and the governing parent law and rules. The challenge failed and the writ petition was dismissed.

---