This is a sad development in the judicial history of the apex court. So far in adoption of children, human rights against police and environmental cases involving the whole country, state governments have been responding to notices and then begin dragging their feet. In the adoption cases when the dilatory tactics by the state government threatened to grind the Supreme Court proceedings to a halt, Justice RN Misra warned that the court would inform the President that the constitutional machinery had broken down in the defaulting states and that the President could then logically follow it up under Article 356 of the Constitution providing for imposition of central rule. This jolted the ruling politicians and the case went on smoothly. But now in Itat cases, despite thenotice issued not only to state governments but even to their standing counsel in the Supreme Court itself, there was no one to represent most of the states on April 29. Only Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Gujarat and some states from the north-east put in an appearance.

The facts about the Gujarat bench of the Itat show how the Union government has been implementing the Parliamentary will for the setting up of an Itat and its benches. The bench at Ahmedabad was set up in 1968. Sine then the tax association there has been pleading that it is highly improper that the government should house the bench in a rented building plagued with water seepage, inadequate toilets and dilapidated chambers. The judicial and accountant members were not provided with any residential accommodation. Worse, the tribunal benches themselves were deprived of stenographers, computers, photocopying machines, housing for transferable staff, transport and a library for members. Alternative reasonable accommodation was pointed outto the high court which directed the Union government to start negotiations for the same. Instead of recognising its duty the Centre appealed to the apex court. to add insult to injury the Union govrnments Central Agency counsel in the apex court faxed to his counterpart in the high court that the proceeding there had been stayed by the apex court. The high court was constrained to point out, after a comparison with the original order of the Supreme Court that the fax message was wrong and the Central Agency counsel should not have sent such a fax.

But the Centre then under pressure of the apex court issued directions empowering the president of the Itat to hire suitable accommodation. The Union government apparently understood that it was the job of the Itat president not only to discharge judicial functions and do the essential administration in relation to such judicial functions, but also to go out on house-hunting trips for the benche and its members. The value bias against the judicial arm of therevenue department was intended to be continued with the Union governemnt providing first rate accommodation, facilities and manpower to its commissioners of income tax who work under the thumb of the ruling politicians and the Union finance ministry bureaucracy. The question is whether this attitude will change and be reflected on May 13 before the apex court by at least informing the court of the status of accommodation for the benches and its members. Or will the state governments again seek adjournments on one pretext or the other? The special bench of Justices SP Bharucha and VN Khare has a daunting task of imparting constitutional culture to the ruling politicians, the IAS officers and the Central Board of Direct Taxes.