February 21 marked a wake up call for the Union Government to the crisis in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT bar meet that day in honour of the selection committee for judicial and accountant members began on a warm note. The senior most judge of the Supreme Court heading the selection committee, Justice S.P. Bharucha, and his wife accompanied by former Supreme Court judge Sujata Manohar, put the dinner meet on pace. Then, as cold facts rolled in about the tribunal in the speeches of the president and the patron of the ITAT, bar, the atmosphere turned funky. A “shattered” Bharucha expressed his agony and declared that the only promise he could make was that he would do his best as chairman of the selection committee.
The chartered accountant-turned lawyer, President K. Sampath pointed out how for the last six months the ITAT did not have postage stamps to despatch its orders to the appellants whose cases had been decided by it. The tribunal’s courtrooms had no law reports. Torn and tattered curtains, broken furniture, rusted air conditioners and coolers, carpets with gaping holes constituted the tribunal’s material conditions. Indeed speedy justice was expected of the members of the tribunal without meaningful privacy in their chambers or personal assistants. Three members shared one local phone and five shared one car. The Agra bench functioned from Delhi because the tribunal bench at Agra is yet to be housed and furnished.
Underlining the crucial importance of the selection committee in ensuring competent members of integrity for the ITAT benches throughout the country, Sampath cited the unfortunate past. The law minister of the Deve Gowda government packed the committee with two of his nominees. The result was that several of those selected were discharged after serving the tribunal for one year. The message to talented and devoted members at the income tax bar was loud and clear. The next selection committee was saved from ignominy when the Supreme Court judge heading it put his foot down against the presence of a member whose son was appearing before the committee for selection. The third selection committee was sought to be formed by including an industrialist and a politician as the law minister’s nominees. The Supreme Court judge chairing the committee again saved the situation by simply cancelling all the scheduled interviews. The government then packed it with two retired judges as the law minister’s nominees. At leastone of those selected violated the minimal norms of integrity and eligibility.
The patron of the ITAT Bar Association, G.C. Sharma, chronicled the decline he had seen in fifty years of tax practice. Accountant and judicial members of the tribunal do not hear cases but dictate orders and judgments in the post-lunch sessions. This is so because no books and no stenographers are provided for them by the law ministry which is supposed to look after the tribunal’s needs. Worse, some members of the tribunal had gone the way of the income tax authorities.
Sujata Manohar recognised the honesty with which the bar had stated the conditions under which it worked. The bar in turn recognised with gratitude her judgment by which she had protected the ITAT from government’s interference. The bar probably indicated that the time had come to ensure the human rights of the citizen in a fair and effective tax adjudication system.
Justice Bharucha rightly pointed out that many of the issues belonged to the government’s domain. He was “shatter-ed” at what he had heard about the path of some of the members and declared, “Corruption in a judge is unforgivable.”
The issues raised by the ITAT bar actually encompass the move of ruling politicians to trivialise the justice system by tribunalisation. The Constitution promises fair and effective justice to the citizens. But increasingly citizens are being shortchanged on this legal promise.
Politicians set up more and more adjudicative bodies outside the normal court system staffed increasingly by government officers selected by committees having a token judicial presence. The selection process itself is based on short interviews instead of a detailed study of the background and integrity reports by the judge heading the selection committee. The judge himself is provided no assistance to satisfy himself about each candidate.
The government officials and their nominees in the committee can thus smuggle in their favourites. Worse, ruling politicians go on lowering the eligibility criteria to enlarge the bank of those to be favoured. These adjudicative bodies in the form of tribunals, commissions, authorities today constitute a visible politico-administrative fraud on the sovereign judicial power. It is time the Supreme Court addressed this national issue.