Home  /  Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993  /  Section 5

Section 5: Qualifications for appointment as Presiding Officer

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1993
Section 4 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 6

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 5

Section 5 prescribes the essential statutory qualifications for appointment as a Presiding Officer of a Debts Recovery Tribunal, requiring candidate eligibility equivalent to that of a District Judge.

  • District Judge Qualification Benchmark: Section 5 mandates that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal unless he is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a District Judge.
  • Judicial Independence Criterion: By requiring judicial experience at the level of a District Judge, the statute ensures that the Presiding Officer possesses proven competence in evidence appreciation, mortgage law, civil procedure, and contract law.
  • Regulatory Selection Mechanism: Appointments are made based on the recommendations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee chaired by the Chief Justice of India or a designated Judge of the Supreme Court, ensuring constitutional insulation from executive dominance.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) 7 SCC 369: The Supreme Court reiterated that qualifications and appointment processes for Presiding Officers of Tribunals must guarantee institutional autonomy, striking down statutory rules that diluted selection committee composition or lowered judicial qualification thresholds.
  • Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association (2002) 4 SCC 275: The Supreme Court observed that the requirement under Section 5 that a Presiding Officer must be qualified to be a District Judge provides adequate constitutional and legal safeguards against arbitrary or incompetent adjudication.
  • Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1: The Constitution Bench held that appointment standards for judicial tribunals must strictly adhere to the constitutional scheme; the executive cannot bypass the judiciary in selecting presiding officers who determine substantial commercial rights.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In challenge proceedings touching the competence of a Presiding Officer, verify that the appointment was notified pursuant to the recommendations of the statutory Search-cum-Selection Committee. Pleading defects in personal appointment must be raised via quo warranto before the High Court under Article 226, not as an interlocutory objection before the DRT itself due to the de facto doctrine.

Section 4 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 6