The Supreme Court, on January 17, 2025, ruled that the Union of India must provide additional staff to the Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) if it intends to require them to furnish extensive data related to debt recovery. The Court emphasized that such measures are essential to ensure that the day-to-day functioning of the tribunals is not adversely affected. The case arose in response to the Ministry of Finance's directive to DRT Visakhapatnam to compile substantial data on various operational aspects, including cases involving amounts exceeding Rs. 100 crores and recovery figures.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reviewed an affidavit submitted by the Director of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, which indicated that most of the sanctioned posts in DRTs across the country had been filled, with only four appointments pending. The Court observed that, given this situation, no further directions were required. However, it clarified that the Ministry must provide additional staff whenever such data is sought to prevent disruption of judicial proceedings. Consequently, the special leave petition (SLP) was disposed of with these observations.
Previously, the Court had expressed serious concerns over the Ministry's approach in treating DRT staff as subordinate officials and its expectation that data collection responsibilities be carried out without additional support. The Court had directed the Ministry to provide a detailed affidavit by January 2, 2025, outlining the staff strength across all 39 DRTs nationwide. In response, the Ministry acknowledged the need for data collection but attempted to justify its actions, arguing that the data was crucial for systemic improvements. However, the Court rejected this justification, emphasizing that tribunals were not adequately equipped for such additional tasks.
During the hearings, it was revealed that an email dated September 9, 2024, had instructed DRT Visakhapatnam to compile the required data within three days. This directive resulted in tribunal staff prioritizing data collection over their judicial responsibilities, which the Court strongly criticized. The Court reiterated that if the Ministry required such data, it should have proactively provided additional resources rather than overburdening the existing staff.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the necessity of maintaining the independence and efficiency of judicial bodies such as the DRTs. It serves as a reminder that administrative demands should not compromise the primary function of tribunals, which is to adjudicate debt recovery matters efficiently. The ruling sets a precedent for ensuring adequate staffing in judicial institutions when additional administrative burdens are imposed by governmental authorities.
Comments