While dealing in the case of RAIL DAWA BAR ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., the Delhi High Court rejected a plea challenging re-appointment of Justice K.S. Ahluwalia as Chairperson of Railway Claims Tribunal.

Court further held that any attempt to vilify judges without any reasonable basis cannot be permitted. The bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh rejected a plea application filed by Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow, seeking direction on Central Government to lay down a fair and transparent selection procedure for the appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman (Judicial), Vice Chairman (Technical), Member (Judicial) and Members (Technical) in Railway Claims Tribunal.

“Accordingly, considering the nature of submissions made in Court and in the pleadings, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that any attempt to vilify Judges, without any reasonable basis, be it Judges of Constitutional Courts, Trial Courts or judges presiding over Quasi-Judicial bodies cannot be permitted.”

Case Brief:

In the said matter, the Petitioner filed a plea submitted that Justice K.S. Ahluwalia was not eligible and qualified for re-appointment and that proper procedure was not followed in the appointment process. On the contrary, the Union of India in its response said that the Search-Cum- Selection Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship decided to search for suitable persons eligible for appointment to the post of Chairperson and drew up a list of six judges of various High Courts.

A panel of two judges was then suggested to the Government, including the name of Justice Ahluwalia (retired) which was accepted and notified.

The petitioner further argued that the committee just “handpicked out of a hat” five eligible candidates even though there were more than 60-70 eligible persons.

Furthermore, the petitioner said that the manner in which the committee did the “search” is a “slap on the face to the term search and throwing all norms and principles to the winds and acting like an autocrat.”

The court further noted that the process of appointment has been explained by the Union of India in its counter affidavit and none of the grounds raised in the petition was made out for setting aside the re-appointment.

“In the overall facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the petition and the pleadings filed by the Petitioner are nothing but an attempt towards undermining the dignity of the current Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal and impede in the functioning of the Railway Claims Tribunal,” it said.

The Court also ordered the Petitioner to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000 in the Delhi High Court