Pallavi Sareen
Jammu, May 17: Lawyers are aghast over the unwarranted response of L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal over the request of Permanent CAT benches for Jammu and Kashmir.
While Chief Justice of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court made the request in a letter addressed to Union Minister in charge of DoPT Dr Jitendra Singh, a rebuttal through Press Information bureau was brought in public notice by CAT Chairman who targeted the intentions of Chief Justice in making the letter public.
He further alleged that Dr Jitendra Singh never received such letter or email. However, the Union Minister who had previously tweeted on the CAT matter warning about misinformation has been silent on the issue.
Such strong-worded intervention to a letter, which according to CAT Chairman, he read about only on a web portal ‘Bar and Bench’ and which was not even addressed to him shows disrespect for the institution of High Court, believes Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association Jammu.
Nearly thirty-one-thousand new cases have been brought under their jurisdiction while all benches of Central Administrative Tribunal collectively had pendency of fifty-thousand cases. Addressing the apprehensions of both the lawyers and public at large, Chief Justice Gitta Mittal wrote to Union MoS seeking the establishment of the Administrative Tribunal with multiple benches having permanent seats in Jammu and Srinagar.
The Chief Justice, in her communication, expressed concern over the lack of required number of benches with permanent seats in Jammu and Srinagar.
In her communication, Chief Justice said, “In the absence of any infrastructure or registry for operationalising the functioning of the Tribunal in J&K and only a single circuit bench of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, it would be hopelessly insufficient to provide efficacious dispensation to the disputants in service matters in the UT of J&K as well as in Ladakh.”
In a rebuttal to J&K High court Chief Justice Gita Mittal, in a letter written to the Centre, Justice Reddy said that the tribunal has recorded the disposal rate of 104% in the past few months and she need not be so apprehensive of the tribunal’s efficacy.
“A DO letter happens to be the communication between its author and the addressee and it is not made public particularly when it is between highly placed dignitaries. Since the news item was only about the establishment of the Benches and is a matter of relevance for the CAT, I contacted the minister to know about the subject. He informed me that he did not receive the letter either in the form of a hard copy or through e-mail,” he added.
Legal experts are of view that as per Article 227, High Court has superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction (except a court formed under a law related to armed forces).
Moreover, High Court is the appellate authority of the tribunal and as such ridiculing the institution of Chief Justice of High Court by the Chairman of CAT amounts to disrespect and it can create a rift between two institutions of law.
After the initial apprehensions of lawyer over service matters coming under CAT jurisdiction, Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh tweeted a clarification saying that the service matters would be heard in J&K itself.
However, various lawyers including Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar President Adv Abhinav Sharma, ex-Bar President and BJP Chief Spokesperson Sr Adv Sunil Sethi, ex-Bar President Sr Adv B.S Slathia, ex-Vice President Adv Sachin Gupta, Adv D S Chouhan, Adv Shah Mohd Chowdhary, and Adv Sheikh Shakeel have on numerous times shown their apprehensions over the capacity of circuit bench of CAT Chandigarh to hear and dispose off the matters.
But the strong-worded response of CAT Chairman who himself is a retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court feels like unnecessary interference in matters not involving him said Adv D.S Chouhan.
He said, “The letter was written by Chief Justice Gitta Mittal. It was addressed to MoS and in charge of DoPT Dr Jitendra Singh. No one was questioning the CAT’s efficacy but it was a matter of concern for both the lawyers and residents of J&K.”
Chief Spokesperson of BJP and Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi was of the view, “If sanctioned strength was increased to four benches when the pendency was 1200 cases, then one can only imagine how important setting up of two permanent benches in Jammu and Kashmir is where service matters are more than 30 thousand.”
He also said, “The communication by Chief Justice was to the Ministry concerned, as should be the case because lawyers had filed their representation before her voicing the same concerns. CAT Chairman was not in the picture. He has not officially responded at all. CAT Chairman has ridiculed the position of Chief Justice through a rebuttal.”
“High Court and CAT appear to be on opposite ends now and this matter need not have been politicised. If Chairman had any concerns, he should have raised them with the Ministry concerned and not through media,” he added.
A PIL has also been filed by Adv Aditya Sharma and Rameshwar Padha in Jammu and Kashmir High Court which demands constitution of permanent bench/benches of Central Administrative Tribunal in both Jammu and Srinagar. The hearing of the PIL is set to be on Tuesday, May 19th, 2020.
The petitioners have argued that it will be impossible for litigants/petitioners to make a representation before the bench in Chandigarh due to geographical remoteness, financial constraints and unavailability of internet access.
