Report No. 162
Additional Questionnaire on Service Tribunals
Whether the existing provisions under section 6 read with section 8 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prescribing Qualification for appointment of a Judicial Member that "a person is, or has been, or is Qualified to be a Judge of a High Court.
"and he shall not hold the office after he has attained.
(b) in the case of Member, the age of sixty two years."
Provide any incentive to a working High Court Judge to join the CAT?
1(a) Whether the words "or is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court" in the aforequoted, section 6, have advanced the objective of making the present forum of CAT, really a substitute of High Court?
1(b) Whether the provisions under section 6 of the Act making persons other than the High Court Judges eligible for appointment have maintained the standard of the fora of CAT regarding its efficiency, effectiveness, efficacy as that of a High Court not only in form and de jure but in content and de facto?
1(c) Should the existing administrative Members be only assessors or continue to be members of the CAT?
2. Do you agree with the suggestion that existing justice delivery system through CAT and SAT has inspired faith and confidence in litigants? If not please elaborate causes.
3. Whether in your opinion, the members of Tribunal enjoy the repute of independence from executive pressures or influence, fearlessness of other power centres, economic or political, and freedom from prejudices acquired and nourished by the class to which they belong?
4. Whether there should be a statutory from to keep under review the constitution and working of the tribunals: also to consider and report on such particular matters and may be referred, to such fora? If so, what should be the nature of the composition of the said forum?