Centre will adhere to timelines, 44 names to be processed for judges' appointment this week, Attorney-General tells SC

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, January 6

Forty-four names were likely to be processed for appointment as judges within two-three days, the Centre told the Supreme Court on Friday as it sought to assure the court that the timeline for processing names recommended by the Collegium would be followed.

Out of the 104 recommendations made by high courts Collegium pending with the government, 44 were likely to be processed and sent to the Supreme Court by this weekend, Attorney General R Venkataramanai told a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

The Bench—which also included Justice AS Oka—asked Venkataramani about the status of recommendation for appointments to various high courts and the Supreme Court as also the recommendations for appointments of chief justices to certain high courts and transfer of high court judges.

As the Bench talked about the recommendations made on December 13 for the elevation of Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal, Patna High Court Chief Justice Sanjay Karol, Manipur High Court Chief Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, Patna High Court Judge Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Allahabad High Court Manoj Misra to the top court, Venkataramani urged it to defer the matter.

“Would your lordships defer this for a little while? I have some inputs given to me but I may have some difference of opinion on that,” the Attorney General told the Bench.

“This should not take time. They are already chief justices and senior judges,” Justice Kaul told Venkataramani.

The Bench took strong exception to the Centre sending back names reiterated by the Collegium, terming it a “matter of concern”. There was nothing in the present scenario to prevent the appointment of a candidate after reiteration of recommendation of his name by the Collegium, it added.

The Bench also objected to the Centre sitting over recommendations for transfer of high court judges, saying it gave rise to an impression that there is ‘third party interference’ and sent a very wrong signal.

“Ten recommendations for transfers have been made. These have been made in the end of September and end of November. In that the government has very limited role. Keeping them pending sends a very wrong signal. It’s unacceptable to the Collegium,” the Bench said.

The Bench – which was 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—posted the matter for further hearing on February 3.

The Bench said the Centre has returned 22 names recommended by the collegium for appointment as judges for reconsideration.

“Rightly or wrongly, we will have to deal with it. There are 22 names which have been sent back. Out of that, some of the ones are which… recommended by the collegium have been sent back. Some reiterated names have been sent back. Some third reiterations have been sent back. And some names are which the collegium did not clear but the Government in its wisdom feels ought to be considered. So collegium will have to consider the views of the government whether those names, which we did not clear earlier, are now required to be cleared or not. The total of these three categories are pending today,” it said.

Justice Kaul expressed concern over meritorious candidates withdrawing their consent for judgeship due to delay in clearing their names for appointment. Senior counsel Vikas Singh and advocate Prashant Bhushan sought to highlight the issue of seniority of a person recommended for judgeship being disturbed by the government.

Maintaining that nothing prevented the Legislature from introducing a better system for appointment of judges, the Bench has been telling the Government that until such a law was enacted, the Collegium system must be followed in letter and spirit.

The government may have its own views when a recommendation was made but it can’t be kept on hold without sending it back with comments, it said.

“What is to be done is that comments can be sent to us. We will look into the comments, see whether we want to reiterate it or drop the name. If we reiterate the name, then there is, as per the present scenario, nothing which can prevent the appointment,” Justice Kaul said, adding no system was perfect.

The Bench said some of the names sent back by the government were reiterated by the Collegium and some were those which the Collegium did not clear but the government felt they ought to be considered.

The Supreme Court and the government have been at loggerheads over the Collegium system of appointment of judges that is in place since 1993.

Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had last month termed it “alien” to the Constitution. After Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar raised questions over scrapping the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) last month and said the three organs should respect the “Lakshman rekha”, the Supreme Court had taken exception to constitutional functionaries commenting on the Collegium.

“Comments on Supreme Court Collegium by government functionaries etc are not well taken… You have to advise them, Attorney General,” the Bench had told Venkataramani.

Asserting that the collegium system was the law of the law that must be followed, it had asked the Attorney General to advise the government on the correct legal position on the issue.