‘Fortifies aspersion of bias’: SC raps RBI Governor presence in I-T appellate tribunal

The January 30 judgment authored by Justice Mehta only refers to “the Officer”, but the contempt case referred to therein makes it amply clear that the reference is to Malhotra.

The bench said that “rule of law constitutes the foundation of a well-governed society, and the shadow of bias or malafides in the exercise of power concerning public functions strikes at the very root of a regulated social order”.

The apex court directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to ensure that a fresh meeting of the SCSC is convened within four weeks to consider Bajaj’s candidature, “ensuring exclusion of ‘the Officer’ from the said proceedings.” It also directed that the outcome of the SCSC proceedings be communicated to Bajaj “within a further period of two weeks thereafter”.

The court noted that despite issuing notice on Bajaj’s writ petition on December 2, 2025, the Centre did not file any counter-affidavit even after the judgment was reserved on January 15, 2026, and termed it “rank procrastination”.

It said that “in the absence of any counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents, the averments made in the writ petition have remained uncontroverted. “In such circumstances, this court is constrained to proceed on the basis that all relevant facets of the case may not have been placed before the SCSC at the time when the petitioner’s candidature was considered. There is a genuine possibility that the fact of ‘the Officer’ having earlier faced contempt proceedings at the instance of the petitioner was not brought to the notice of the Committee,” the court added.

For the “rank procrastination shown by the” Centre and the “deliberate obstacles created by them in the path of the petitioner bordering to vendetta and as the allegations set out in the writ petition remain untraversed,” the bench imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on it, to be deposited with the court’s registry for payment to Bajaj.

The Supreme Court said that “considering the fact that ‘the Officer’ now holds a sensitive position, we refrain from making any observations on his role in the entire sequence of events leading to the present litigation”.

The judges added, “Nonetheless, we feel that the inclusion of ‘the Officer’ as a member of the SCSC, which rejected the petitioner’s candidature, has undoubtedly created a genuine perception of bias in the mind of the petitioner and was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. ‘The Officer’ had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the instance of the petitioner in relation to the very same ongoing tussle, and in such circumstances, a reasonable apprehension as to his impartiality and independence in the process of selection of the petitioner as Member (Accountant), ITAT, is fortified.”

The judgment further said, “True it is, that ‘the Officer’ was only one among the members of the committee; however, his presence and participation in the selection process, inspite of his arraignment as a contemnor in the contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner, was not justified and rendered the decision-making process vulnerable on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.”

A 12-year-legal battle

The petitioner, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, joined the Army as a permanent commissioned officer in 1980 but was released from service on grounds of physical disability suffered during operations. He then wrote the civil services exam and became an IRS officer in 1990. “With an unblemished record”, he was promoted as income tax commissioner in 2012.

In 2014, he applied for the post of member (accountant), ITAT, and was interviewed by an SCSC headed by a then sitting Supreme Court judge, which ranked him first in the all-India merit list.

However, no formal letter of appointment was issued to him on the premise that certain adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs were available against him, which allegedly emanated from litigation between the petitioner and his estranged spouse.

This led to several rounds of litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Allahabad High Court, as well as the Supreme Court, all of which went in Bajaj’s favour. He was even placed in the ‘Agreed List’—a “list of Gazetted Officers of suspected integrity maintained by the Department—but this was quashed by the Tribunal, which directed that his name be forwarded to the competent authority for appointment as ITAT member.

When this was also not followed, contempt proceedings followed before the Tribunal and the high court. Before the high court, the government kept seeking adjournments, saying steps were being taken to forward his name for appointment as member, ITAT. On June 17, 2018, a charge memorandum was issued, and Bajaj was placed under suspension on July 1, 2019. Barely three months before his superannuation, he was compulsorily retired on September 27, 2019, but on March 3, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed this “with scathing observations”.

When his appointment to ITAT was still not considered, Bajaj approached the Supreme Court with a contempt of court case in which the top court summoned Malhotra, who then “tendered an unconditional written apology”.

Bajaj’s appointment was still not processed. He was called to appear before a fresh SCSC, which also had Malhotra as one of the members. The committee subsequently rejected his candidature.