The Supreme Court Collegium has proposed elevation of Advocate Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla as a judge of the Bombay High Court, overruling the objection raised by the Intelligence Bureau that his senior had written an article in 2020 expressing concerns over the state of freedom of speech and expression in the country in the past 5-6 years.
The Collegium said in a resolution on Wednesday that the article written by Pooniwalla’s former senior would have no bearing on his own competence, ability or credentials for appointment as a Judge of the High Court of Bombay.
Noting that Pooniwalla and his former senior practiced on the Original side of the High Court of Bombay, the Collegium observed that a junior counsel associated with the chamber of a senior on the Original side was not engaged in a relationship of employer-employee with their senior.
While the juniors were associated with the chamber, they were free to do their own work and for all the intents and purposes, were entitled to independent legal practice, pointed out the resolution, adding that no adverse comments reflected on the suitability of the candidate for elevation.
The Collegium quoted a report by the Intelligence Bureau, which said that Pooniwalla had a good personal and professional image. It had further said that nothing adverse had come to notice regarding his integrity and that he was not associated with any political party. The resolution added that the consultee-judges have also sided with the fact that Advocate Pooniwalla was suitable for elevation.
It further noted that the IB report did not make any adverse comments reflecting on the suitability of Pooniwalla for elevation in the file. It said the candidate has an extensive practice at the Bar, specialising in commercial law. It said the candidate professed Parsi Zoroastrianism and belonged to a minority community.
The Collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph, also recommended Advocates Shailesh Pramod Brahme and Jitendra Shantilal Jain for appointment as judges in the same High Court.
IB had flagged an issue regarding Jain also, pertaining to his work in the chamber of a senior on the taxation side about 20 years ago.
However, the Collegium said that enquiries have indicated that while it was correct that the candidate had ceased working in the chamber of that senior, he subsequently joined the chamber of a noted senior counsel at the Bar. The fact of the candidate having left the chamber of a senior earlier would have no bearing on his ability, competence or integrity, it added.
The Collegium further mentioned Advocate Brahme in its resolution, saying that he was a competent lawyer with experience of about 30 years of practice in civil, criminal, constitutional and service law cases. No adverse inputs were received against him, noted the Collegium.