Delhi HC Notices Plea Over Judicial Appointment as NCLT Acting President

The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a plea challenging the appointment of a judicial member as the acting President of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), setting the stage for a legal examination of how seniority is determined within the tribunal’s administrative hierarchy.

The matter came before a bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, which observed that the petition raised “prima facie substance” and sought responses from the Central Government and the concerned judicial member appointed as acting President. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on April 20.

The petition has been filed by NCLT technical member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, who has contested a Central Government notification dated March 16 appointing judicial member Bachu Venkat Balaram Das as the acting President of the tribunal. Singh has argued that he is the senior-most member of the NCLT based on his date of appointment and therefore ought to have been considered for the position.

Also Read: President Droupadi Murmu Nominates Harivansh Narayan Singh To Rajya Sabha After Term Ends

According to Singh, provisions under Sections 407 and 415 of the Companies Act, 2013 require that the senior-most member of the tribunal assume charge as acting President in the event of a vacancy. He has contended that the term “member” includes both judicial and technical members, and that seniority must be assessed purely on the basis of date of appointment rather than designation.

The Centre, in its submissions, has defended the appointment by stating that in the absence of a statutory framework clearly defining seniority among members, an established convention has been followed. Under this practice, the judicial member who assumes office earlier is treated as senior for the purpose of appointing the acting President.

The appointment in question was made after the retirement of the previous NCLT President, following which interim arrangements were put in place until a regular appointment is finalised. The government has argued that the decision was taken in administrative necessity and in line with past practice.

During the hearing, the High Court indicated that statutory interpretation would be central to resolving the dispute, particularly whether convention can override a statutory mandate regarding seniority. The court also noted that institutional practice cannot continue if it is inconsistent with the governing law.

The case highlights broader questions around tribunal administration, particularly the balance between statutory provisions and administrative conventions in quasi-judicial bodies such as the NCLT.The matter will now be taken up on April 20, when the Centre and the respondent are expected to file detailed replies before the court proceeds further.

Also Read: Ukraine’s Top Negotiator Says Peace Talks With Russia Are Showing Signs Of Progress