Legal Review and Analysis of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs Union of India & Anr 2026 INSC 101
Synopsis
This Supreme Court judgment, delivered under Article 32 of the Constitution, is a stark indictment of institutional vendetta and administrative mala fides. The Court intervenes to remedy a prolonged injustice suffered by a distinguished civil servant, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, whose appointment as a Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was systematically thwarted by the government department over a decade. The core legal principles examined are the doctrine of bias, the principles of natural justice, and the scope of judicial review against mala fide exercise of administrative power. The Court set aside a biased selection committee's decision and directed a fresh, impartial consideration of the petitioner's candidature.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1180 of 2025: Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 101
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Original Jurisdiction (Article 32)
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Nature of Bench: Division Bench (Two Judges)
Date of Judgment: January 30, 2026
2. Governing Legal Framework & Key Precedents
The judgment is grounded in constitutional and administrative law principles:
Primary Constitutional Provision:
Article 32 of the Constitution: Invoked for enforcing fundamental rights, specifically the right to equality and fair treatment under Article 14, and the right to a fair and impartial selection process.Key Administrative Law Doctrines:
Principles of Natural Justice (Nemo judex in causa sua): The rule against bias, ensuring no person should be a judge in their own cause.
Doctrine of Mala Fides: Exercise of power for extraneous or malicious purposes.Relevant Service Rules:
Fundamental Rule 56(j): Pertaining to compulsory retirement in public interest (discussed in the context of its earlier misuse against the petitioner).Key Judicial Precedents:
State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta: Cited extensively for the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. A reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a reasonable person is sufficient to vitiate a proceeding, even without proof of actual bias.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India: Established that principles of natural justice apply to administrative proceedings, including selection committees, and that the presence of a personally interested member vitiates the entire process.
S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P., State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna: Reinforced the test for determining bias based on probabilities and the impression left on the minds of the aggrieved and the public.
This Court's earlier judgment dated 03.03.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2022 (same parties): Where the Court had quashed the petitioner's compulsory retirement, holding it was punitive, mala fide, and intended to short-circuit disciplinary proceedings.
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The Petitioner: A decorated former Army officer, released on medical disability, who joined the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) in 1990 and rose to the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax with an unblemished record.
The Genesis: In 2013, the petitioner topped the all-India merit list for the post of Member (Accountant), ITAT, as evaluated by a Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) headed by a Supreme Court Judge.
A Decade of Obstruction: Following his topping the merit list, the Department of Revenue (CBDT/DoPT) initiated a series of malicious actions:
Withheld his appointment based on an unsubstantiated IB report.
Placed him under suspension and issued a charge memorandum (later dropped).
Included his name in the "Agreed List" (list of officers of suspected integrity), which was quashed by the Tribunal.
Compulsorily retired him under FR 56(j) just three months before his natural superannuation (this order was quashed by the Supreme Court in 2023 as mala fide and punitive).Contempt Proceedings: The petitioner had to initiate contempt proceedings against senior officers, including the then Revenue Secretary ("the Officer"), for willful disobedience of court orders directing his appointment.
The Final Act of Bias: After the Supreme Court's 2023 verdict reinstating him, a fresh SCSC was convened in 2024. One of its members was "the Officer" who had been a contemnor in the petitioner's contempt case. This committee rejected the petitioner's candidature.
4. Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), which included an officer against whom the petitioner had successfully pursued contempt proceedings, suffered from a reasonable apprehension of bias, thus violating the principles of natural justice?
Whether the protracted history of the case, marked by a series of judicial findings of mala fide and vindictive actions by the respondents, warranted the Supreme Court's extraordinary intervention under Article 32 to directly ensure justice?
5. Ratio Decidendi & Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court allowed the petition, setting aside the SCSC's decision. The core reasoning is as follows:
Violation of Natural Justice – Reasonable Apprehension of Bias: The Court firmly applied the doctrine enunciated in State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta. It held that the inclusion of "the Officer" – who had a direct and adversarial history with the petitioner, having faced contempt proceedings at his instance – as a member of the SCSC created an inherent and undeniable conflict of interest. This gave rise to a "reasonable apprehension of bias" in the mind of a reasonable person. The Court emphasized that it is not necessary to prove actual prejudice; the mere likelihood or reasonable suspicion is enough to vitiate the proceeding. The presence of such a member, irrespective of his voting power, taints the group deliberation and the collective decision-making process (A.K. Kraipak).
Uncontroverted Allegations of Mala Fide & Vendetta: The Court noted the respondents' failure to file any counter-affidavit, leaving the petitioner's grave allegations of institutional vendetta and mala fides uncontroverted. The judicial record, including the Supreme Court's own scathing 2023 judgment, painted a consistent picture of the department's "targeted departmental vendetta" and "protracted persecution" designed solely to block the petitioner's legitimate appointment.
Duty to Ensure Fairness and Public Confidence: The Court reiterated that the rule against bias exists not only to ensure a fair decision but also to uphold public confidence in the impartiality of public institutions. A selection process for a quasi-judicial post like the ITAT must be beyond any reproach or suspicion.
Judicial Review of Mala Fide Process: The Court exercised its power under Article 32 to scrutinize the decision-making process itself. Finding the process fundamentally flawed due to bias and the overarching context of mala fides, the Court held the resulting decision could not stand.
6. Legal Principles Established & Clarified
This judgment powerfully reaffirms and applies several cardinal principles:
The "Reasonable Apprehension" Standard for Bias: It reinforces that in administrative and selection processes, the test for bias is objective – whether a reasonable person, aware of all the circumstances, would apprehend a lack of impartiality. Past adversarial litigation between a candidate and a selector is a classic circumstance creating such an apprehension.
Natural Justice in High-Level Appointments: The principles of natural justice, particularly nemo judex in causa sua, are squarely applicable to high-level selection committees, including those headed by Supreme Court Judges. No member should have a personal history of conflict with a candidate.
Article 32 as a Shield Against Persistent Executive Harassment: The judgment exemplifies the use of Article 32 as a remedy not just for a single wrongful act, but for a continuous pattern of executive abuse aimed at depriving an individual of their rightful due, especially where lower fora have been rendered ineffective by non-compliance.
7. Judicial Examination & Analytical Concepts
The Court's analysis was profound and multi-layered:
Historical Scrutiny: The Court did not examine the 2024 SCSC decision in isolation. It meticulously traced the decade-long "chequered history," relying on its own previous findings and uncontroverted facts to establish a pattern of malicious intent.
Application of Precedent on Bias: It correctly applied the precedent in R.A. Mehta, distinguishing between actual bias and the reasonable apprehension thereof, and adopted the "objective probability" test from S. Parthasarathi.
Inference from Non-Response: The Court drew an adverse inference from the respondents' failure to file a counter-affidavit despite opportunity, treating the petitioner's allegations as accepted.
Balancing Act: The Court balanced its duty to condemn mala fides with judicial restraint, explicitly refraining from making remarks against the individual officer given his sensitive position, while unequivocally condemning the procedural impropriety of his inclusion in the committee.
8. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome
Final Decision & Directions:
The minutes of the SCSC meeting dated 01.09.2024, rejecting the petitioner's candidature, were quashed and set aside.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) was directed to re-constitute a fresh SCSC within four weeks to consider the petitioner's case, ensuring the exclusion of "the Officer".
The outcome was to be communicated within two weeks thereafter.
Costs of ₹5,00,000 were awarded to the petitioner, payable by the respondents, for the "rank procrastination" and "deliberate obstacles" amounting to vendetta.Significance & Impact:
A Landmark for Civil Servants: This is a powerful precedent protecting upright officers from systemic harassment and vendetta-driven administrative actions.
Strengthens Institutional Integrity: It sends a stern message to all government departments that the judiciary will pierce the "smoke screen" of administrative action to uncover mala fides and bias.
Clarifies Composition of Committees: It provides clear guidance that selectors must be free from any past personal adversarial involvement with candidates to maintain the process's sanctity.Critical Viewpoint: The judgment is a robust exercise of constitutional power to correct a grave and persistent injustice. It highlights the judiciary's role as the ultimate guardian against executive caprice, especially when it manifests as a sustained campaign against an individual. The award of significant costs underscores the Court's disapproval of the state's conduct.
(MCQs)
1. Which constitutional article was invoked by the petitioner to directly approach the Supreme Court in this case?
a) Article 14
b) Article 226
c) Article 32
d) Article 136
2. The Supreme Court set aside the Search-cum-Selection Committee's decision primarily because it violated?
a) The fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g).
b) The doctrine of legitimate expectation.
c) The principles of natural justice, specifically the rule against bias based on reasonable apprehension.
d) The statutory mandate of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. According to the Supreme Court, which of the following is sufficient to vitiate a selection process on grounds of bias, as per the precedent in State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta?
a) Only conclusive proof of actual prejudice influencing the decision.
b) A mere allegation of bias by the aggrieved candidate.
c) A reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of a reasonable person.
d) The personal dislike of one committee member for the candidate.
4. What critical inference did the Supreme Court draw from the respondents' failure to file a counter-affidavit in the proceedings?
a) That the petitioner's allegations were frivolous.
b) That the allegations in the writ petition remained uncontroverted and were therefore accepted.
c) That the Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter.
d) That the petitioner was not entitled to costs.