Satya Prakash
New Delhi, January 6
Forty-four names are 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 the names recommended by the Collegium would be followed.
Out of the 104 recommendations made by High Court Collegiums pending with the government, 44 are likely to be processed and sent to the Supreme Court by this weekend, Attorney General R Venkataramani told a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The Bench ndash; 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 HC judges.
‘Delay sends wrong signal’
Bench objects to the Centre sitting over recommendations for transfer of HC judges, saying it gives rise to impression of “third party interference” and sends the wrong signalSays some third reiterations have been sent back and some names the Collegium didn’t clear, but the government in its ‘wisdom feels these ought to be considered’
As the Bench talked about the recommendations made on December 13 for the elevation of Rajasthan HC Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal, Patna HC Chief Justice Sanjay Karol, Manipur HC Chief Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, Patna HC Judge Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Allahabad HC Judge Manoj Misra to the top court, Venkataramani urged it to defer the matter.
Sitting over transfers ‘unacceptable’
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
“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 HC 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 ndash; 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 had 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 arehellip; (which were) recommended by the Collegium but 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 these ought to be considered. So the 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 is 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 that 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.
Centre returns 22 names
The top court said Centre had returned 22 names recommended by Collegium for appointment as judges. “Out of that, some of the ones arehellip; (which were) recommended by the Collegium but have been sent back. Some reiterated names have been sent back.”
