Supreme Court Has Repeatedly Said 10 Years Experience In Law Is Sufficient For Appointment As Judicial Member In Tribunals

Case: Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe v. Union of India and others

Coram: SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

Case No: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 11 OF 2021

Court Observation: “Thus, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has repeatedly held that to have 10 years of experience in law and in other specialized fields as prescribed and stipulated under the statute, is sufficient for appointment as a judicial member in the Tribunal. The Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules of 2020 to the extend prescribing a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Commission under the Act of 2019, is an attempt to circumvent the directions issued in MBA-2020 and UPCPBA. Hence, they are arbitrary, illegal and violates the principle of equality before the law.”

“Moreover, the decision of the Selection Committee to hold the written test, supports the case of the petitioner that looking at the judicial functions needed to be performed by the President and Members of District and State Commissions, the criteria for selection and appointment shall be applied as nearly as possible applicable to the judges in mainstream judiciary, exercising the similar powers,”

[doc id=9637]

Previous Posts

NCLAT Has No Jurisdiction To Condone Delay Exceeding 15 Days From Period Of 30 Days, Contemplated U/s 61(2) IBC: Supreme Court

Bar U/s 9(3) Arbitration Act Not Applicable If Application Was Taken Up By Court Before Constitution Of Arbitration Tribunal: Supreme Court

Repeated Filing Of Cases & Complaints Against Spouse Can Amount To ‘Cruelty’ For Granting Divorce: Supreme Court

Compassionate Appointment: ‘Divorced’ Daughter Cannot Be Treated At Par With ‘Widowed’ Or ‘Unmarried’ Daughter: Supreme Court

Income Tax Act – Disallowance Under Section 14A Can’t Be Made Just Because Assessee Has Not Maintained Separate Accounts For Expenditures Incurred For Tax-Free Income: Supreme Court

Writ Court Cannot Adjudicate Factual Disputes Arising Out Of Pure Contractual Matters Having No Statutory Flavour: Supreme Court

Consumer Complaints Alleging Deficiency In Service Related To Transfer Of Title Of Immovable Property Not Maintainable: Supreme Court Download Judgement