MANMEET KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, filed in public interest, by an Advocate practicing in this Court, draws the attention of this Court to the state of affairs prevailing in the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, established under The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI). It is stated, that the said Tribunal was constituted to hear appeals against the orders of the Adjudicating Officers and comprises of a Presiding Officer and two technical members; that only a sitting or a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a sitting or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court is eligible to be appointed as the Presiding Officer of the said Tribunal; that the last Presiding Officer of the Tribunal retired on 28 th November, 2011 and none has been appointed as the Presiding Officer till date; that treating the absence of the Presiding Officer as temporary, the Ministry of Finance has vide order dated 5 th December, 2011, invoking Rule 5(2) of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2000, permitted the sittings of Tribunal to be presided over by one of the technical members; that since then the Tribunal comprising only of technical members has been entertaining, adjudicating and disposing of appeals.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that such functioning of the Tribunal without the Presiding Officer and the order dated 5 th December, 2011 are illegal and the Rule aforesaid invoking which the order dated 5 th December, 2011 has been issued is ultra vires the SEBI Act and the law. Reliance in this regard is placed on L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, 1997 3 SCC 261, R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India, 1993 4 SCC 119, Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, 2010 11 SCC 1 and judgment dated 13 th September, 2012 of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.210/2012 titled Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India.

(3.) It is further the contention of the petitioner that the cases before the said Tribunal involve intricate questions of law and which cannot be adjudicated without a person with wide adjudicatory experience and qualifications and status defining a Presiding Officer and which the members of the Tribunal do not have.