Lack of judicial dominance in the appointment process of Members and Presiding Officers of Tribunal is in direct contravention of doctrine of separation of powers and is encroachment on the judicial domain. Executive \u00a0is a litigating party in most of the litigations and hence , cannot be allowed to be a dominant participant in judicial appointments .\u00a0 Tribunals constituted in substitution of Courts should have similar standards of appointment , qualification and conditions of service to inspire confidence of public at large . Central Government has given liberty to seek modification \u00a0of the order after framing fresh Rules Strictly in conformity and accordance with the principles \u00a0delineated in R.K Jain ( 1993) 4SCC 119 , L. Chandra Kumar (1997) 3 SCC 261 , Madras Bar Association\u00a0 (2014) 10 SCC 1 and\u00a0 Gujarat Urja Nigam Ltd ( 2016) 9 SCC 103, conjointly \u00a0read with this judgement . \u00a0Central Government directed to consult Law Commission of India and other expert body and revisit the provisions of statutes referable to the Finance , Act , 2017 or other Acts listed herein. Central Government should then place appropriate proposals before Parliament\u00a0 for consideration of the need to remove direct appeals to Supreme Court from orders of Tribunals . This should be done with in six months . Tribunal dealing with similar areas of law\u00a0 must be amalgamated to ensure efficient utilisation of reserves and facilitate greater access to justice .<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Finance , Act , 2017<\/p>\n S. 184 : Merger of Tribunals and other Authorities and Conditions of Service of Chairpersons , Members etc \u2013 Excessive delegation \u2013 Whether Unconstitutional- Courts , Tribunals and Judiciary -Appointment process -Independence of Judiciary [ S.183 , Constitution of India , Art . 124, 214, 216, 226, 323-A ,323-B ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3Y1","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15253"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15253\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15254,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15253\/revisions\/15254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}