The Supreme Court today directed the Centre to file a status report in two weeks on the existing vacancies and the stage of the selection process for appointment of chairpersons and members of various tribunals.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud also clarified that Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 65 years.
It said that Chairpersons who have been former judges of the Supreme Court shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 70 years.
In the case of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the apex court clarified that the old rules would continue to apply.
It also said that a person selected as Member of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal will continue until the age of 62 years while a person holding the post of President shall continue until the age of 65 years.
The appointments in various tribunals were stalled due to the pendency of the petitions in the apex court challenging the Finance Act and the Tribunal, Appellate and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other conditions of Service of Members) Rules, which dealt with appointments, tenure and other service conditions of office-bearers of such panels.
More From This Section
A batch of pleas, including from the National Green Tribunal Bar Association, Employees Provident Fund Tribunal Bar Association and one Kudrat Sandhu, have alleged that the newly-amended Finance Act had changed the search, selection and removal process of members and presiding officers of tribunals.
The pleas have challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the 'Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals and Other Authorities (qualifications, experience and other conditions of service of members) Rules, 2017'.
The petitions have also sought an interim stay on the provisions of the new Act and the Rules, under which a new Search-cum-Selection Committee for the post of Administrative Member would be set up.
The Finance Act, which came into effect from April 1, led to the framing of the 2017 Rules which gave "unbridled" powers to the Executive to decide on the qualification of the members, their appointment and removal among other issues, one of the petitions alleged.