The Supreme Court on Monday once again reprimanded the Union of India for not approving the transfer of certain judges, most of them from the Gujarat High Court, even as it cleared the Collegium’s recommendation to transfer judges from other High Courts.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia pointed out that out of 11 recommendations, the Central government had notified transfer of five judges.
However, it had not cleared the transfer of six other judges, including four from the Gujarat High Court, one from the Delhi High Court and one from the Allahabad High Court.
Appearing for the Union government, Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani sought some time to clear the proposals.
The Apex Court recorded in its order that the AG has ensured that this court will not be disappointed looking at the effort he is making.
Agreeing to his request, the Bench listed the matter for further hearing on December 5.
The top court of the country passed the orders on 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 judgment for clearing collegium proposals on November 7, 2023.
A writ petition filed by the non-profit Centre for Public Interest Litigation raising the issue of delay in judicial appointments was also listed along with the contempt petition.
Pointing out that ‘selective transfers’ did not send a ‘good signal,’ the Apex Court said that it created its own dynamics. It asked the Centre as to what signal it wanted to give by not transferring six judges, including four from the Gujarat High Court.
At some stage, it would look like that the judges who the Collegium thought should not work in a court, would continue to work there. Talking about the consequence, the Bench said this could mean something unpleasant. It would lead to the judges feeling embarrassed and their authority being diluted. The Supreme Court then directed the Centre to make sure this did not happen.
The judge also pointed out that out of the names recently recommended, eight candidates have not been appointed, even though some of them were senior to others whose names have been cleared by the government.
The Supreme Court on Monday once again reprimanded the Union of India for not approving the transfer of certain judges, most of them from the Gujarat High Court, even as it cleared the Collegium’s recommendation to transfer judges from other High Courts.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia pointed out that out of 11 recommendations, the Central government had notified transfer of five judges.
However, it had not cleared the transfer of six other judges, including four from the Gujarat High Court, one from the Delhi High Court and one from the Allahabad High Court.
Appearing for the Union government, Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani sought some time to clear the proposals.
The Apex Court recorded in its order that the AG has ensured that this court will not be disappointed looking at the effort he is making.
Agreeing to his request, the Bench listed the matter for further hearing on December 5.
The top court of the country passed the orders on 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 judgment for clearing collegium proposals on November 7, 2023.
A writ petition filed by the non-profit Centre for Public Interest Litigation raising the issue of delay in judicial appointments was also listed along with the contempt petition.
Pointing out that ‘selective transfers’ did not send a ‘good signal,’ the Apex Court said that it created its own dynamics. It asked the Centre as to what signal it wanted to give by not transferring six judges, including four from the Gujarat High Court.
At some stage, it would look like that the judges who the Collegium thought should not work in a court, would continue to work there. Talking about the consequence, the Bench said this could mean something unpleasant. It would lead to the judges feeling embarrassed and their authority being diluted. The Supreme Court then directed the Centre to make sure this did not happen.
The Bench further pointed out that out of the names recently recommended, eight candidates have not been appointed, even though some of them were senior to others whose names have been cleared by the government.
Talking about the consequences of the Centre’s ‘pick and choose’ policy, the Apex Court said that if a candidate did not know what seniority he/she would have on becoming a judge, it would become difficult to persuade eligible and deserving candidates to accept the position.
The Bench directed the Centre to refrain from adding to the backlog of unnotified recommendations, saying that it (Court) was trying to solve the past problem here as it affected the system.
It pointed out that the Central government had not sent its response to five names suggested by the Supreme Court collegium. With respect to five others, no step has been taken by the Centre despite the recommendations being reiterated once or more.
Besides, three candidates whose names were recommended in the month of July have not yet been sent with inputs to the Supreme Court Collegium. The bench said it was flagging these recommendations because the timeline for their approval had elapsed.
The Apex Court appreciated the recent decision of the Gauhati High Court, which deferred the swearing-in ceremony of a senior advocate whose name was cleared for judgeship by the Centre, even as another candidate whose name was placed first in an October 17 collegium recommendation of the Supreme Court was overlooked.
Within two days of the High Court issuing a public notice deferring the oath ceremony, the Union government notified the appointment of the more senior candidate as well.
The Apex Court today observed that in Gauhati, one of the senior candidates, a designated senior advocate, was in the first instance not cleared. This was taken up on a very serious note and ultimately, the oath to the others was delayed for some time to facilitate the government to issue a warrant of appointment of the said person.
It said it appreciated the stand taken on this behalf by the Collegium and the consequent action taken by the government.