Statutory, regulatory & various quasi-judicial bodies

Model Answer

Introduction

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to provide a specialized forum for addressing grievances and complaints involving central government employees. Over the years, CAT has evolved into an independent judicial authority that upholds the principles of natural justice.

Evolution of CAT’s Independence

The independence and impartiality of CAT have been strengthened through several key factors:

1. Appointment and Tenure:
   • Members, including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, are appointed by the President of India, which ensures a degree of independence from the executive branch. Their tenure is fixed, and they can only be removed for specific, justifiable reasons, allowing them security in decision-making (Source: Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985).
2. Nature of Proceedings:
   • CAT conducts its proceedings with flexibility, adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is not bound by strict rules of evidence, which allows for a more fair and just approach to dispute resolution (Source: CAT Procedural Guidelines).
3. Right to Appeal:
   • Decisions made by CAT can be appealed to High Courts and subsequently to the Supreme Court, establishing a system of checks and balances that reinforces the rule of law and the tribunal’s independence.

Landmark Judgments

Several landmark judgments illustrate CAT’s role as an independent judicial authority:

• Ajit Singh Januja Case (1997):
  • CAT ruled in favor of employees denied promotions based on seniority rules, asserting its authority to scrutinize government decisions on service matters.
• Mohan Kumar Singhania Case (1991):
  • The tribunal held that the compulsory retirement of a government employee without providing reasons was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion

By exercising its powers transparently and impartially, CAT plays a critical role in safeguarding the rights of government employees. Its evolution into an independent judicial authority ensures adherence to natural justice in resolving service-related disputes, enhancing the integrity of the administrative framework in India.

Model Answer

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), tasked with enforcing economic laws such as the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) 1999 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002, has faced significant criticisms regarding its functioning and effectiveness. These criticisms stem from concerns about its operational transparency, fairness, and accountability.

1. Low Conviction Rate

• Despite initiating a large number of investigations, ED’s conviction rate is remarkably low.
  Fact: As of March 31, 2022, ED achieved convictions in only 23 cases out of 5,422 PMLA cases, reflecting a conviction rate of less than 0.5%.
  Implication: This undermines public confidence in its ability to ensure justice and effectively combat money laundering.

2. Lack of Accountability

• The ED’s operations lack transparency, which raises concerns about fairness and due process.
  Fact: The ED is not obligated to share the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) with the accused, severely hampering their defense.
  Criticism: This opacity reduces credibility and raises questions about impartiality.

3. Abuse of Wide Powers

• The ED possesses broad powers without adequate checks and balances.
  Fact: The agency can search and seize property without registering a scheduled crime with a magistrate.
  Implication: This undermines judicial oversight and compromises individual rights.

4. Discretion in Application of Law

• There are allegations of selective enforcement, often influenced by political considerations.
  Fact: Under Section 65 of PMLA, ED has discretion to apply CrPC or PMLA provisions, raising concerns about potential bias.

5. Delayed Pre-trial Processes

• Prolonged investigations and repeated summons are often perceived as harassment.
  Fact: The Supreme Court criticized ED for filing multiple charge sheets, delaying trials, and prolonging legal uncertainty.

Conclusion

While the ED plays a crucial role in maintaining India’s financial integrity, its functioning is marred by issues that undermine public trust. Improving accountability, ensuring judicial oversight, and streamlining investigative processes are essential to bolster its credibility and effectiveness.