The Delhi High Court has set aside the Central Government’s decision rejecting the appointment of a Vice-President in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), directing a fresh and time-bound reconsideration of the issue.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula heard a writ petition filed by Santosh Kumar Mohanty, a serving as (Judicial Member) of CESTAT, Mumbai Bench, who claimed that as the senior-most member, he was entitled to be considered for appointment as Vice-President—a post lying vacant since October 2014.
The controversy stemmed from a communication issued by the Ministry of Finance on March 28, 2025, which rejected the proposal to fill the Vice-President post. The rejection was based on the reasoning that the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, framed under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, do not provide for such a post in CESTAT.
Challenging this stance, the petitioner argued that the government had overlooked the statutory provisions under Section 129(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the CESTAT Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987, which explicitly empower the Central Government to appoint Vice-President(s) in the Tribunal.
A crucial dimension of the case involved the legal validity of the government’s reliance on Section 3 of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. The petitioner pointed out that the said provision had already been examined by the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2026), where it was held to be unconstitutional for violating principles of judicial independence and separation of powers.
Notably, the Union of India acknowledged before the High Court that the legal position had evolved following the Supreme Court’s ruling and submitted that the issue was under reconsideration not only for CESTAT but also for other tribunals.
Taking note of these developments,the court held that the impugned communication rejecting the proposal was primarily founded on a provision that no longer holds legal ground. Consequently, the Court set aside the communication and remitted the matter to the competent authority in the Ministry of Finance for fresh consideration.
The Court directed that the reconsideration must specifically examine the applicability of Rule 12 of the 1987 Rules along with Sections 129(4) and 129(7) of the Customs Act. It further allowed the petitioner to submit an additional representation, which must be duly considered by the authorities.
The High Court imposed a strict timeline, directing that the entire exercise be completed within four weeks. If the request for appointment is accepted, appropriate consequential steps must follow; if rejected, the government must issue a reasoned and speaking order, leaving the petitioner free to pursue further legal remedies.
While disposing of the petition, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim, thereby keeping all legal issues open for determination during reconsideration.
Case Details
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Mohanty Versus UOI
Citation: JURISHOUR-791-HC-2026(DEL)
Case No.: W.P.(C) 11681/2025
Date: 10.04.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Senior Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Rakesh Kumar, SPC
