Introduction:

In a recent ruling on the case of ISHAN GILL vs. UNION OF INDIA, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking the immediate appointment of experienced advocates as judicial members in the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The petitioner invoked Article 32, urging the appointment of advocates with at least a decade of practice to fill the vacant positions across AFT benches nationwide. The court’s decision was rendered by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner highlighted the staggering backlog of cases in the AFT, citing the limited functioning of only four benches out of 17 nationwide in 2021. With 19,000 pending cases in the AFT, the petitioner sought immediate appointments to expedite case disposal. However, the Chief Justice verbally remarked that the relief sought was flawed, emphasizing that appointments to such positions must follow a stringent selection process. The court further conveyed that advocating individuals could apply when the formal selection process commenced.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court rejected the plea for the immediate appointment of advocates as judicial members in the AFT, underscoring the necessity of adhering to a formal selection procedure for such appointments. The court reiterated that appointments to judicial positions involve a defined selection process that aspiring candidates must follow. The bench did not accede to the petitioner’s plea for an immediate appointment of experienced advocates but indicated that individuals could participate in the selection process as and when it commenced.