Judicial appointments: Centre sitting over 70 Collegium recommendations; Supreme Court asks AG to get it resolved

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, September 26

After a lull of seven months, the Government and the Judiciary appear to be headed for another round of confrontation over judicial appointment with the Supreme Court on Tuesday pointing fingers at the Centre for sitting over 70 recommendations for appointment and transfer of high court judges.

“There were 80 recommendations pending until last week when 10 names were cleared. Now, the figure is 70 — of which 26 recommendations are of transfer of judges; seven are reiterations; nine are pending without being returned to the Collegium; and one case is of appointment of the Chief Justice to a sensitive high court (Manipur),” a Bench led by Justice SK Kaul said, adding, “All these recommendations are pending since November last year.”

The Supreme Court and the Government have been at loggerheads for quite some time over the Collegium system of appointment of judges that has been in place since 1993. The then Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had in December last year termed it “alien” to the Constitution.

Justice Kaul – the senior-most judge after CJI DY Chandrachud – is part of the Supreme Court Collegium that controls appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.

While hearing a petition filed by the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru alleging “wilful disobedience” of the time frame laid down to facilitate timely appointment of judges in its April 20, 2021 order, the Bench on Tuesday told Attorney General R Venkataramani to impress upon the Centre to process the names recommended for appointment and transfer of high court judges.

As Venkataramani said he will get back to the top court with instructions from the Government, the Bench – which also included Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia – posted the matter for further hearing on October 9.

“Today, I am quiet because the Attorney General has sought a very short time… next time I will not be quiet. Use your good offices to see to it that these issues are resolved,” Justice Kaul told Venkataramani.

Justice Kaul – who is to demit office on December 25 — said the matter will be taken up every 10-12 days so that substantial work was done before his retirement.

On behalf of Common Cause, advocate Prashant Bhushan said inordinate delay in processing the names for appointment as judges affected the morale of lawyers who withdrew their consent for judgeship.

“I agree that the way good candidates withdraw their consent to be a judge is really worrisome. We try to get the best talents but due to pendency, lawyers whose names have been recommended for judgeship have withdrawn their names,” Justice Kaul said, adding Justice Kaul, there were nine such names kept pending by the Government without reverting to the Collegium.

On behalf of the petitioner, senior counsel Arvind P Dattar said a “hard push” was needed to ensure that the Centre adhered to the timeline.