LAGATAR24 DESK
New Delhi, Sept. 26: After a brief hiatus, the Supreme Court on Tuesday again expressed concerns at the Central Government not deciding on several collegium recommendations for appointments and transfers of High Court judges, including the appointment of the Chief Justice of a “sensitive High Court” (alluding to the Manipur High Court), reports LiveLaw.
A bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul shared its concern with the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani that seventy collegium recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium from November 11, 2022, are pending with the Union Government. Out of them, seven are names that have been reiterated by the collegium. Justice Kaul revealed that till four days ago, 80 files were pending and 10 files were cleared by the Government after that. So, the present figure is 70.
“Number of names reiterated is 7. 9 names have been proposed for the first time, 1 Chief Justice promotion, 26 transfers…which means 70 names recommended from Nov 11, 2022”, Justice Kaul orally told the AG urging him to take instructions from the Government with respect to High Court recommendations made at least until end of April this year. Agreeing to do so, AG Venkataramani sought one week’s time.
“In some ways, we have endeavoured to push these things. Now we want to monitor it closely”, Justice Kaul said while posting the matter to October 9.
The bench comprising Justices SK Kaul (who also happens to be second judge in the Supreme Court collegium) and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a petition filed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru seeking contempt action against the Union Ministry of Law and Justice for not adhering to the timeline set by the court in a 2021 judgement for clearing collegium proposals. A writ petition filed by the NGO Common Cause raising the issue of delay in judicial appointments was also listed along with the contempt petition.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Common Cause, said that 16 names reiterated by the Collegium are pending before the Centre. He said that many advocates have withdrawn their consent for judgeship in view of the delay in appointments.
Agreeing with Bhushan, Justice Kaul said, “Some of them lose interest and withdraw. One or two such great candidates. With the assurance from AG, I’ll take this matter up every 10 days. I thought of saying a lot, but since the attorney is asking for 7 days, I’m holding myself”.
Bhushan also raised concerns about Central Government segregating names recommended by the collegium in one batch. “There are 9 such cases”, Justice Kaul said.
“According to my list, there are 14. But in any case, Your Lordships can cross-verify”, Bhushan said. Justice Kaul said that the bench will take up the matter every ten days to monitor the progress closely.
Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, appearing for the petitioner, said that there should be a “hard push” to ensure that the Centre follows the timelines. Backing Datar’s submission, Bhushan said, “I’m sure the attorney will try, but it may be beyond his…”. This submission drew a protest from the AG, who said that the comment was unnecessary.
Justice Kaul then said, “His predecessor, Mr Venugopal, somewhere he persuaded, somewhere…”.
“That’s why I’m saying, the court has to give a hard push”, Bhushan urged.
When the Supreme Court issued notice in the contempt petition to the Centre last November, it triggered a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive on the issue of judicial appointments. After this case was taken up, the then Union Law Minster Kiren Rijiju used several public platforms to openly question the validity of the collegium system. The comments of the Law Minister did not got down well with the Court, which on its judicial side expressed dismay and urged the top law officers to advise the Centre to follow the law laid down by the court regarding judicial appointments.
On a previous occasion, the Attorney-General for India R Venkataramani, on behalf of the government, assured the court that the timeline for judicial appointments would be followed and the pending collegium recommendations be cleared soon. Despite this assurance, the Centre has, for instance, not yet notified the appointment of advocates Saurabh Kirpal, Somasekhar Sundaresan, and John Satyan despite the court reiterating their names rejecting the government’s objections.
On another occasion, the court also reminded that once the aspect of a memorandum of procedure was settled by a constitution bench judgment, the Centre could not circumvent it. Any delay in appointments ‘frustrated the whole system’, the court has said. It also expressed grave concerns over the Centre’s practice of ‘splitting up collegium resolutions’ disrupting the seniority of the persons nominated for judgeship. The issue, which had died down for a while after the Centre cleared a spate of collegium resolutions, now seems to be coming back alive with the Court expressing its strong intention to pursue the matter.
