Supreme Court To Examine PIL On Vacant Debt Recovery Tribunals

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding the swift appointment of Presiding Officers to fill vacancies in Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) nationwide. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued a notice to the Central government, directing it to respond within five weeks.

Taking note of the petition, the court highlighted that although the selection process began in September 2023 and interviews concluded in May 2024, 11 of the country’s 39 DRTs remain unmanned.

“The respondent (Union government) must file a counter affidavit within five weeks of receiving the notice. A rejoinder, if any, is to be filed within three weeks thereafter,” the bench ordered. The court scheduled the next hearing for the week commencing January 27, 2025.

Vacancies Hampering Tribunal Functioning

The PIL, filed by advocate Sudarshan Rajan, pointed out that as of September 30, 2024, 11 DRTs were non-functional due to vacant Presiding Officer positions. Despite an early notification in September 2023 anticipating these vacancies, no appointments have been made to date.

Also Read: RSS Condemns Brutal Killings In Manipur; Calls For Urgent Action

The petition criticized the delay in initiating the selection process and warned that the inaction risks more tribunals becoming non-functional, frustrating the core purpose of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act), 1993. The act aims for “expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.”

Practical Challenges Due To Additional Charges

The Centre’s practice of assigning additional charges of vacant DRTs to officers in neighboring states was also criticized in the petition. It argued that this approach creates logistical difficulties for lawyers and litigants and slows the resolution of cases in both the primary and secondary tribunals.

“Only urgent matters are taken up by these DRTs with additional charges, leaving normal cases unaddressed, thereby escalating pendency,” the petition noted. The delays contradict the RDB Act’s stipulated timeline of 60 to 180 days for case resolution.

Plea for Immediate Action

The PIL urged the government to act promptly to address the vacancies, arguing that prolonged inaction undermines constitutional and statutory mandates. It emphasized the need for a coordinated effort to ensure DRTs are functional and capable of delivering timely justice.

The Supreme Court’s intervention raises hopes of expedited action on filling these critical vacancies, ensuring the effective operation of the DRT system.