The Supreme Court today heard the petition challenging the inaction of the Centre in filling up vacancies in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)..Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora made some scathing submissions regarding the Centre’s failure to appoint members to the Tribunal on time..The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud..The petitioner, one Akshay Pundir, has submitted,.“…in August 2015, a DPC (meeting) for filling up the new post of seven Vice Presidents and one senior Vice President was conducted under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, in which seven ITAT members have been promoted to the post of Vice President on the basis of their seniority and one has been promoted to the post of senior Vice President.”.In addition, the petition also alleged that graft charges were leveled against the two members who are currently working as Vice Presidents. It is prayed that they may not be appointed as President, owing to their poor integrity..When the matter was last heard, the central government had told the Supreme Court that the appointments would be completed within three weeks..When the case was taken up today, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar submitted that the Selection Committee had recommended seven names, out of which four were appointed. Two persons who were recommended by the Selection Committee were not appointed due to reasons which he submitted in a sealed cover to the court..At this juncture, Arora however made a strong rebuttal. She submitted that the Selection Committee had made recommendations in 2015, but the appointments were made in 2017. She submitted that three of the four persons who were appointed would be retiring soon and the appointments were a mere lip service. She said,.“The recommendations were made in 2015 but appointments were made in 2017. Three of them are retiring. The appointments are a mere lip service. The process cannot be obfiscated in this manner.”.When the Solicitor General retorted that the date of retirement of all appointees are known well in advance, CJI Khehar said,.“You are not appreciating what she said. What she said was recommendations were made in 2015 but appointments happened in 2017.”.The Court then proceeded to adjourn the case for three weeks, stating that Centre’s submissions need further consideration. The Court also expressed its inclination to hear out the matter, remarking that it would not dispose of the case.
The Supreme Court today heard the petition challenging the inaction of the Centre in filling up vacancies in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)..Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora made some scathing submissions regarding the Centre’s failure to appoint members to the Tribunal on time..The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud..The petitioner, one Akshay Pundir, has submitted,.“…in August 2015, a DPC (meeting) for filling up the new post of seven Vice Presidents and one senior Vice President was conducted under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, in which seven ITAT members have been promoted to the post of Vice President on the basis of their seniority and one has been promoted to the post of senior Vice President.”.In addition, the petition also alleged that graft charges were leveled against the two members who are currently working as Vice Presidents. It is prayed that they may not be appointed as President, owing to their poor integrity..When the matter was last heard, the central government had told the Supreme Court that the appointments would be completed within three weeks..When the case was taken up today, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar submitted that the Selection Committee had recommended seven names, out of which four were appointed. Two persons who were recommended by the Selection Committee were not appointed due to reasons which he submitted in a sealed cover to the court..At this juncture, Arora however made a strong rebuttal. She submitted that the Selection Committee had made recommendations in 2015, but the appointments were made in 2017. She submitted that three of the four persons who were appointed would be retiring soon and the appointments were a mere lip service. She said,.“The recommendations were made in 2015 but appointments were made in 2017. Three of them are retiring. The appointments are a mere lip service. The process cannot be obfiscated in this manner.”.When the Solicitor General retorted that the date of retirement of all appointees are known well in advance, CJI Khehar said,.“You are not appreciating what she said. What she said was recommendations were made in 2015 but appointments happened in 2017.”.The Court then proceeded to adjourn the case for three weeks, stating that Centre’s submissions need further consideration. The Court also expressed its inclination to hear out the matter, remarking that it would not dispose of the case.
