Disapproving of the government’s further verification of candidates already recommended by the Search and Selection Committee (SCSC) for appointment to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed it to place any material it has on the candidates before the SCSC itself for a decision on their suitability.
It will be “appropriate”, Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha said, “if all inputs on candidates, whether in form of Intelligence Bureau inputs or from any other sources, be placed before SCSC by the Union government.”
Placing the material before the SCSC, the court said, will put the panel in a position to determine “if any modification (to orders already passed) is necessary in view of the subsequent facts”.
Emphasizing that the SCSC, besides being chaired by Supreme Court judge (AM Khanwilkar), “also comprises two secretaries of the Union of India”, the court said: “A comprehensive exercise is conducted by the SCSC…Hence all such inputs as are available with govt must be placed with SCSC in advance.”
The bench said even in exceptional situations where material comes to knowledge of the competent authority after the SCSC’s recommendations, the information must be placed before the panel.
The court was hearing a plea seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against senior government officials for delaying appointments to ITAT.
The bench noted that of the 41 names — 28 in main list and 13 in waiting list — recommended by SCSC, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet had approved 13 names on September 11, 2021 and 9 on October 1, 2021. Nineteen other candidates, however, remain to be appointed, it noted.
This, the government had said, was because some names were rejected as additional material had come to its knowledge after the SCSC had made its recommendation.
On the previous date of hearing, the SC had directed that the files in connection with these appointments be submitted to it.
When Attorney General KK Venugopal produced the files Tuesday, the bench sought to know who had carried out the exercise of collating the additional details. It was the “Prime Minister’s Office”, the AG replied.
After perusing the files, the court noted that apart from collating the IB reports and another column on remarks, they contained “feedback sheets” for candidates recommended by the SCSC as members of ITAT.
“The real bone of contention is about the column titled ‘Feedback’,” the bench said, adding the file note “does not indicate underlying material for the ‘Feedback’ or process followed in arriving at `Feedback’.
“In many cases, we find from tabulation that ‘Feedback’ is diametrically at variance with IB report,” it said.
The court noted that under the existing procedure, as the IB report for each candidate is placed before SCSC before shortlisting takes place and the interview is held, the final list of candidates is of those cleared by IB.
“Evidently, many of the comments in the ‘Feedback’ column are of subjective nature without any underlying material… this would substantially detract from the fairness of the process,” the bench said.
As the court asked the government to bring to the SCSC’s notice any “tangible” material on candidates that comes to its knowledge, Venugopal assured the court it will be followed in all future appointments.
The bench, however, insisted it be done in the case of names rejected by the government for ITAT and asked for all such material to be placed before the SCSC within a week.
The court will hear the matter next on July 12.
,