Hyderabad: The Supreme Court has censured the Centre for a “sordid tale of targeted departmental vendetta” against ex-Army officer Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj—now an Indian Revenue Service officer—setting aside a selection committee decision that blocked his appointment as member (accountant) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The court observed that the presence of a “senior officer” on the panel created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
While the judgment refers to him only as “the officer” to protect his “sensitive position”, reporting and linked records identify him as Sanjay Malhotra, former revenue secretary and current Reserve Bank of India (RBI) governor.
Malhotra held the revenue secretary post from December 2022 to December 2024 and took over as RBI Governor on 11 December 2024.
ThePrint has contacted Malhotra for his comment, and this report will be updated if and when his response is received.
Also Read: Gujarat HC quoting Pink Floyd is fun. It makes people want to read judgments
Fresh panel to reconsider appointment
Allowing the writ petition filed by Captain Bajaj, a division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta quashed the decision of the fourth Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC), which had rejected Bajaj’s candidature in November 2025.
The court directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to reconvene the committee—excluding Sanjay Malhotra—and reconsider Bajaj’s candidature within four weeks.
“Having thoroughly considered the material on record…we are overwhelmingly convinced that the petitioner has been subjected to grave injustice and rank high-handedness by the respondents by intentionally hampering and impeding his candidature for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT,” the court noted.
The bench also imposed Rs 5 lakh in costs on the government for “rank procrastination,” highlighting that the Centre had allegedly obstructed Bajaj’s appointment for over a decade.
Reasonable apprehension of bias
The Supreme Court highlighted that Malhotra had tendered an “unconditional written apology” in contempt proceedings initiated by Bajaj in August 2024. Yet, barely a month later, he sat as a member of the SCSC that rejected Bajaj’s candidature. The court ruled that this conflict vitiated the selection process.
“His presence and participation in the selection process, in spite of his arraignment as a contemnor in the contempt proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner, was not justified… and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias,” the court said.
Decade-long struggle against obstruction
Captain Bajaj is a former Army officer invalided out after sustaining a disability linked to military operations. He joined the IRS in 1990 after clearing the UPSC, rising to the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax with an unblemished record.
In 2014, Bajaj applied for appointment as Member (Accountant) of ITAT. A previous SCSC, chaired by the then-Supreme Court Justice T.S. Thakur, gave him All India Rank 1. Despite this, the government withheld his appointment, citing adverse Intelligence Bureau inputs, allegedly connected to a matrimonial dispute.
This rejection triggered nearly a decade of litigation across the Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. During this period, Bajaj faced multiple obstructions, including withholding of vigilance clearance, placement on an “Agreed List” of officers of doubtful integrity, initiation of disciplinary proceedings and suspension, compulsory retirement in September 2019, three months before his scheduled superannuation.
In March 2023, the Supreme Court struck down his compulsory retirement, calling it punitive, arbitrary, and a misuse of power, and noting that Bajaj had been graded “outstanding” with integrity “beyond doubt.”
Despite the 2023 ruling, the government did not issue his ITAT appointment letter and asked him to appear before a fourth selection committee. It was on this committee that Malhotra sat, despite having recently apologised to the Court in the related contempt case. That committee then rejected Bajaj’s candidature in November 2025, prompting the latest Supreme Court intervention.
Justice must be seen to be done
The bench emphasised that justice must not only be done but must also manifestly be seen to be done.
“In the interest of fairness and to dispel any reasonable apprehension of bias, it would have been appropriate for ‘the Officer’ to have recused from the evaluation process on his own. His failure to do so fortifies the aspersion of bias,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court also noted that despite receiving notice, the Centre failed to file any counter affidavit, leaving allegations of mala fides and vendetta uncontroverted.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)