The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a formal response from the Central Government regarding a legal challenge against the appointment of Bachu Venkat Balaram Das as the acting president of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The petition, filed by NCLT technical member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, alleges that the appointment bypasses statutory seniority rules.
A bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and O P Shukla issued notices to both the Centre and Das, directing them to file their replies within four days. The court noted that there appeared to be “prima facie substance” in the petitioner’s claim that seniority should be determined by the date of appointment rather than the nature of the membership.
The legal battle hinges on whether the head of the NCLT must be a judicial member or simply the senior-most member of the tribunal. The petitioner, Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, was appointed as a technical member on October 1, 2021. In contrast, Bachu Venkat Balaram Das joined as a judicial member on October 18, 2021—approximately two weeks later.
Following the retirement of the former NCLT president on March 16, the Centre appointed Das as the acting president on March 17. The government defended this move by citing a “convention” of appointing the senior-most judicial member to the post.
However, the petitioner argues that the law mandates the appointment of the “senior-most member,” regardless of whether they are a judicial or technical appointee.
During the proceedings, the bench expressed skepticism regarding the government’s reliance on “convention” over written law. The court emphasized that if a statute occupies the field, it must be followed strictly.
“If the statute says the senior-most member has to be appointed and he (petitioner) is appointed prior to the present acting president… there is prima facie substance in him saying that he is senior,” the bench observed.
The judges further clarified that if the petitioner is indeed the senior-most member, his status as a technical member is irrelevant under the current law. “We will not perpetuate any ‘practice’ of appointing judicial members as acting president if it is in contravention of the statute,” the court stated.
This marks the petitioner’s second attempt to bring the matter before the High Court. He initially approached the court in March but withdrew the plea on April 1 to seek redressal from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). However, the CAT ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, prompting the petitioner to return to the High Court.
The bench has listed the case for further hearing on April 20, stressing the importance of the issue by requiring a swift four-day turnaround for the government’s reply.
