News Analysis India

Tag: Collegium

  • Delay in judges’ appointment affects principle of seniority, says collegium

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Taking a strong exception to the Centre withholding or overlooking the names recommended for appointment as judges, the Supreme Court collegium on Wednesday said it is “a matter of grave concern” as it disturbs the seniority of candidates.

    The collegium asked the government to elevate those recommended earlier without further delay, even as it recommended four more names for the Madras High Court in a resolution dated March 21.

    The collegium, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, recommended the elevation of district judges R Sakthivel, P Dhanabal, Chinnasamy Kumarappan and K Rajasekar to the Madras High Court.

    The collegium said the elevation of Rajasekar, which was recommended on Wednesday, should only be notified after that of Neelakandan. “Otherwise, Rajasekar, who is a judicial officer and younger than Neelakandan, would rank senior to Neelakandan. Such a deviation in seniority would be unfair and against the settled convention,” the collegium’s resolution said.

    Recalling that the elevation of advocates R John Sathyan and Ramaswamy Neelakandan to the Madras HC was reiterated on January 17, the collegium urged the Centre to do the needful for their appointment.

    Earlier, the Centre had returned advocate Sathyan’s file as he had shared an article critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and another post regarding the suicide of a medical aspirant in 2017.

    Referring to the Intelligence Bureau’s report that he enjoyed a good personal and professional image, the collegium said the posts made by Sathyan would not impinge on his suitability, character or integrity to be a high court judge.

    “In this view, the Collegium is of the considered opinion that R. John Sathyan is fit and suitable for being appointed as a Judge of the Madras High Court. The Collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated February 16, 2022, for appointment of R. John Sathyan, advocate, as a Judge of the Madras High Court,” said the January 17 resolution.

    The Collegium’s resolution on March 21 stated that the recommendation made by the High Court Collegium on August 10, 2022, for the appointment of the four judicial officers as judges of the Madras High Court has the concurrence of the chief minister and the governor of Tamil Nadu.

    NEW DELHI: Taking a strong exception to the Centre withholding or overlooking the names recommended for appointment as judges, the Supreme Court collegium on Wednesday said it is “a matter of grave concern” as it disturbs the seniority of candidates.

    The collegium asked the government to elevate those recommended earlier without further delay, even as it recommended four more names for the Madras High Court in a resolution dated March 21.

    The collegium, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, recommended the elevation of district judges R Sakthivel, P Dhanabal, Chinnasamy Kumarappan and K Rajasekar to the Madras High Court.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The collegium said the elevation of Rajasekar, which was recommended on Wednesday, should only be notified after that of Neelakandan. “Otherwise, Rajasekar, who is a judicial officer and younger than Neelakandan, would rank senior to Neelakandan. Such a deviation in seniority would be unfair and against the settled convention,” the collegium’s resolution said.

    Recalling that the elevation of advocates R John Sathyan and Ramaswamy Neelakandan to the Madras HC was reiterated on January 17, the collegium urged the Centre to do the needful for their appointment.

    Earlier, the Centre had returned advocate Sathyan’s file as he had shared an article critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and another post regarding the suicide of a medical aspirant in 2017.

    Referring to the Intelligence Bureau’s report that he enjoyed a good personal and professional image, the collegium said the posts made by Sathyan would not impinge on his suitability, character or integrity to be a high court judge.

    “In this view, the Collegium is of the considered opinion that R. John Sathyan is fit and suitable for being appointed as a Judge of the Madras High Court. The Collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated February 16, 2022, for appointment of R. John Sathyan, advocate, as a Judge of the Madras High Court,” said the January 17 resolution.

    The Collegium’s resolution on March 21 stated that the recommendation made by the High Court Collegium on August 10, 2022, for the appointment of the four judicial officers as judges of the Madras High Court has the concurrence of the chief minister and the governor of Tamil Nadu.

  • Objective of Collegium is to protect judiciary’s independence: CJI Chandrachud

    The CJI also noted that the judiciary has to be protected from outside influences if it has to be independent. NEW DELHI: Not every system is perfect but this is the best system available, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said on Saturday while defending the Collegium system of judges appointing judges, a major bone of contention between the government and judiciary.

    Speaking at the India Today Conclave, the CJI said the judiciary has to be protected from outside influences if it has to be independent.

    “Not every system is perfect but this is the best system we have developed. But the object was to protect the independence of the judiciary, which is a cardinal value. We have to insulate the judiciary from outside influences if the judiciary has to be independent,” Chandrachud said.

    The CJI also responded to Law Minister Kiren Rijiju voicing displeasure over the Supreme Court Collegium revealing the government’s reasons for not approving the names recommended by it for appointment as judges of constitutional courts.

    “What is wrong about having a difference in perception? But, I have to deal with such differences with a sense of robust constitutional statesmanship. I do not want to join issues with the law minister, we are bound to have differences of perceptions,” the CJI said.

    ALSO READ | In defense of the collegium

    Rijiju has been quite vocal against the Collegium system and once even called it “alien to our Constitution.”

    Justice Chandrachud said there is absolutely no pressure from the government on how to decide cases.

    “In my 23 years of being a judge, no one has told me how to decide a case. There is absolutely no pressure from the government. The Election Commission judgment is proof that there is no pressure on the judiciary,” CJI said.

    The Supreme Court had recently ruled the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and election commissioners will be done by the President on the advise of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.

    ALSO READ | SC order on EC appointments: Rijiju invokes ‘Lakshman Rekha’

  • Supreme Court nixed govt’s proposal on collegium, says Rijiju

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Thursday said that the Centre’s suggestion for a search and evaluation committee (SEC) – at the levels of the Supreme Court and state High Courts to assist collegiums – was shot down by judges of the apex court. 

    The proposed committee, which the Supreme Court did not agree to constitute, would be tasked with screening and evaluating relevant material on prospective candidates and act as a facilitator for the collegiums in narrowing down on recommendations. 

    Responding to a question by MP Shri Ram Nath Thakur whether the government is heading towards appointing its representative in the process of appointment of judges in the Rajya Sabha, Rijiju said, “In its consultations with the SC 

    Collegium, the government has made suggestions in line with the Supreme Court order dated 2015. The decision to make recommendations will continue to be exercised by the respective collegiums of the Supreme Court and state High Courts. However, the Supreme Court did not agree to set up such committees.”

    Clarifying that the government never suggested for inclusion of its nominee in collegium for appointment of judges, the minister said that the government on January 6 had, however, recommended for inclusion of a government nominee in the search-cum-evaluation committee in appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of High Courts. 

    The minister said that this would pave the way for a more transparent, accountable and expeditious mechanism for appointment of judges to the Constitutional courts. Rijiju further said that it suggested for inclusion of representative nominated by the Government of India and a representative of state governments under the jurisdiction of HC as nominated by the chief ministers in Committee for appointing HC judges. 

    On the appointment and transfer of Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts, Rijiju said the names recommended by chief ministers can be received by the committee along with the names taken from senior judges outside the Collegium and eligible candidates taken from the database (Judicial Officers and Advocates) as maintained by the proposed Secretariat. The High Court Collegium may deliberate upon panel of names drawn up by the committee and recommend the names of most suitable candidates,” the reply said. 

    Centre asked collegium to reconsider 18 namesCentre asked the SC collegium to reconsider 18 proposals for appointments of judges as on January 31, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju has said in the Rajya Sabha on Friday. To a question by MP Dr John Brittas, the Rijiju said that of the 18 returned proposals, the collegium decided to reiterate 6, and sought inputs from the High Courts, while returning 5 back to the High Courts

    NEW DELHI: Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Thursday said that the Centre’s suggestion for 
    a search and evaluation committee (SEC) – at the levels of the Supreme Court and state High Courts to assist collegiums – was shot down by judges of the apex court. 

    The proposed committee, which the Supreme Court did not agree to constitute, would be tasked with screening and evaluating relevant material on prospective candidates and act as a facilitator for the 
    collegiums in narrowing down on recommendations. 

    Responding to a question by MP Shri Ram Nath Thakur whether the government is heading towards appointing its representative in the process of appointment of judges in the Rajya Sabha, Rijiju said, “In its consultations with the SC 

    Collegium, the government has made suggestions in line with the Supreme Court order dated 2015. The decision to make recommendations will continue to be exercised by the respective collegiums of the Supreme Court and state High Courts. However, the Supreme Court did not agree to set up such committees.”

    Clarifying that the government never suggested for inclusion of its nominee in collegium for appointment of judges, the minister said that the government on January 6 had, however, recommended for inclusion of a government nominee in the search-cum-evaluation committee in appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of High Courts. 

    The minister said that this would pave the way for a more transparent, accountable and expeditious mechanism for appointment of judges to the Constitutional courts. Rijiju further said that it suggested for inclusion of representative nominated by the Government of India and a representative of state governments under the jurisdiction of HC as nominated by the chief ministers in Committee for appointing HC judges. 

    On the appointment and transfer of Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts, Rijiju said the names recommended by chief ministers can be received by the committee along with the names taken from senior judges outside the Collegium and eligible candidates taken from the database (Judicial Officers and Advocates) as maintained by the proposed Secretariat. The High Court Collegium may deliberate upon panel of names drawn up by the committee and recommend the names of most suitable candidates,” the reply said. 

    Centre asked collegium to reconsider 18 names
    Centre asked the SC collegium to reconsider 18 proposals for appointments of judges as on January 31, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju has said in the Rajya Sabha on Friday. To a question by MP Dr John Brittas, the Rijiju said that of the 18 returned proposals, the collegium decided to reiterate 6, and sought inputs from the High Courts, while returning 5 back to the High Courts

  • Basic structure doctrine a North Star that guides interpreters of Constitution, says CJI Chandrachud

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Saturday called the basic structure doctrine a North Star that guides and gives a certain direction to the interpreters and implementers of the Constitution when the path ahead is convoluted.

    The remarks by the CJI came against the backdrop of the recent remarks by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar who questioned the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case verdict that gave the basic structure doctrine.

    Dhankar had said the verdict set a bad precedent and if any authority questions Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, it would be difficult to say “we are a democratic nation.”

    Delivering the Nani A Palkhivala Memorial Lecture here, the CJI said the craftsmanship of a judge lies in interpreting the text of the Constitution with the changing times while keeping its soul intact.

    “The basic structure of our Constitution, like the north star, guides and gives a certain direction to the interpreters and implementers of the Constitution when the path ahead is convoluted,” he said.

    “The basic structure or the philosophy of our Constitution is premised on the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, secularism, federalism, freedom and the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.”

    The CJI said that from time to time, we require people like Nani Palkhivala, who was an eminent jurist, to hold candles in their steady hands to light the world around us. “Nani told us that our Constitution has a certain identity which cannot be altered.”

    He said the doctrine of basic structure has shown that it might be beneficial for a judge to look at how other jurisdictions have dealt with similar problems for them.

    The basic structure principle became the ground for setting aside several Constitutional amendments, including the quashing of the Constitutional amendment and the corresponding NJAC Act on the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

    ALSO READ | WEB SCRAWL:  In defense of the collegium

    Dhankhar, who is the Rajya Sabha chairman, recently said he does not subscribe to the Kesavananda Bharati case verdict that Parliament can amend the Constitution but not its basic structure. He had asserted that parliamentary sovereignty and autonomy are quintessential for the survival of democracy and cannot be permitted to be compromised by the executive or judiciary.

    Addressing the 83rd All India Presiding Officers Conference in Jaipur on January 11, he said the judiciary cannot intervene in lawmaking. “In 1973, a wrong precedent (galat parampara) started.”

    “In 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court gave the idea of basic structure saying Parliament can amend the Constitution but not its basic structure. With due respect to the judiciary, I cannot subscribe to this,” Dhankhar, who has been a Supreme Court lawyer, said.

    Dhankar’s statement came against the backdrop of a raging debate on the issue of appointment to the higher judiciary with the government questioning the current Collegium system and the Supreme Court defending it.

    In his lecture, Justice Chandrachud said the identity of the Indian Constitution has evolved through the interaction of Indian citizens with the Constitution and has been accompanied by judicial interpretation.

    “The craftsmanship of a judge lies in interpreting the text of the Constitution with the changing times while keeping its soul intact,” he added.

    The CJI also observed that India’s legal landscape has undergone a significant change in recent decades in favour of removing “strangulating regulations, augmenting consumer welfare and supporting commercial transactions.”

    He said the emerging world economy has erased national boundaries, and companies no longer stop at the border.

    “In recent decades, India’s legal landscape has also undergone a significant change in favour of removing strangulating regulations, augmenting consumer welfare and supporting commercial transactions.”

    The CJI noted that legislations such as the Competition law and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code have been enacted to promote fair market competition.

    Similarly, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has sought to streamline indirect taxation on the supply of goods and services in India, he added.

    “If you look at the Constitution, it does not favour unbounded economic liberalism. Rather, our Constitution seeks to find the right balance.”

    The CJI further said the Constitution allows the state to change and evolve its legal and economic policies to meet societal demands.

    He said that when individuals have the opportunity to exercise their liberties and to be fairly rewarded for their efforts, then economic justice becomes one of the many interrelated dimensions of life.

    Ultimately, we share common faiths and destinies to the point that the development of each individual fosters social justice in the entire world, he added.

    “We have come a long way from the time when getting a phone required you had to wait for a decade, and buying your car even longer at times. We have come a long way from the time of the control of capital issues,” he added.

    Talking about Palkhivala and several prominent cases in which he was involved, the CJI said the eminent jurist was at the forefront of preserving the very identity and cardinal principle embedded in the Constitution.

    “Nonetheless, the larger picture of legal culture and local dimensions of law, which are dictated by the local context, should never be obfuscated. Law is always grounded in social realities.”

    MUMBAI: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Saturday called the basic structure doctrine a North Star that guides and gives a certain direction to the interpreters and implementers of the Constitution when the path ahead is convoluted.

    The remarks by the CJI came against the backdrop of the recent remarks by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar who questioned the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case verdict that gave the basic structure doctrine.

    Dhankar had said the verdict set a bad precedent and if any authority questions Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, it would be difficult to say “we are a democratic nation.”

    Delivering the Nani A Palkhivala Memorial Lecture here, the CJI said the craftsmanship of a judge lies in interpreting the text of the Constitution with the changing times while keeping its soul intact.

    “The basic structure of our Constitution, like the north star, guides and gives a certain direction to the interpreters and implementers of the Constitution when the path ahead is convoluted,” he said.

    “The basic structure or the philosophy of our Constitution is premised on the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, secularism, federalism, freedom and the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.”

    The CJI said that from time to time, we require people like Nani Palkhivala, who was an eminent jurist, to hold candles in their steady hands to light the world around us. “Nani told us that our Constitution has a certain identity which cannot be altered.”

    He said the doctrine of basic structure has shown that it might be beneficial for a judge to look at how other jurisdictions have dealt with similar problems for them.

    The basic structure principle became the ground for setting aside several Constitutional amendments, including the quashing of the Constitutional amendment and the corresponding NJAC Act on the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary.

    ALSO READ | WEB SCRAWL:  In defense of the collegium

    Dhankhar, who is the Rajya Sabha chairman, recently said he does not subscribe to the Kesavananda Bharati case verdict that Parliament can amend the Constitution but not its basic structure. He had asserted that parliamentary sovereignty and autonomy are quintessential for the survival of democracy and cannot be permitted to be compromised by the executive or judiciary.

    Addressing the 83rd All India Presiding Officers Conference in Jaipur on January 11, he said the judiciary cannot intervene in lawmaking. “In 1973, a wrong precedent (galat parampara) started.”

    “In 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court gave the idea of basic structure saying Parliament can amend the Constitution but not its basic structure. With due respect to the judiciary, I cannot subscribe to this,” Dhankhar, who has been a Supreme Court lawyer, said.

    Dhankar’s statement came against the backdrop of a raging debate on the issue of appointment to the higher judiciary with the government questioning the current Collegium system and the Supreme Court defending it.

    In his lecture, Justice Chandrachud said the identity of the Indian Constitution has evolved through the interaction of Indian citizens with the Constitution and has been accompanied by judicial interpretation.

    “The craftsmanship of a judge lies in interpreting the text of the Constitution with the changing times while keeping its soul intact,” he added.

    The CJI also observed that India’s legal landscape has undergone a significant change in recent decades in favour of removing “strangulating regulations, augmenting consumer welfare and supporting commercial transactions.”

    He said the emerging world economy has erased national boundaries, and companies no longer stop at the border.

    “In recent decades, India’s legal landscape has also undergone a significant change in favour of removing strangulating regulations, augmenting consumer welfare and supporting commercial transactions.”

    The CJI noted that legislations such as the Competition law and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code have been enacted to promote fair market competition.

    Similarly, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has sought to streamline indirect taxation on the supply of goods and services in India, he added.

    “If you look at the Constitution, it does not favour unbounded economic liberalism. Rather, our Constitution seeks to find the right balance.”

    The CJI further said the Constitution allows the state to change and evolve its legal and economic policies to meet societal demands.

    He said that when individuals have the opportunity to exercise their liberties and to be fairly rewarded for their efforts, then economic justice becomes one of the many interrelated dimensions of life.

    Ultimately, we share common faiths and destinies to the point that the development of each individual fosters social justice in the entire world, he added.

    “We have come a long way from the time when getting a phone required you had to wait for a decade, and buying your car even longer at times. We have come a long way from the time of the control of capital issues,” he added.

    Talking about Palkhivala and several prominent cases in which he was involved, the CJI said the eminent jurist was at the forefront of preserving the very identity and cardinal principle embedded in the Constitution.

    “Nonetheless, the larger picture of legal culture and local dimensions of law, which are dictated by the local context, should never be obfuscated. Law is always grounded in social realities.”

  • Expression of views doesn’t disentitle candidate from holding constitutional post: SC Collegium

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Expression of views by a candidate proposed for judgeship does not disentitle him from holding a constitutional post as long as he has competence, merit and integrity, the Supreme Court Collegium has said while reiterating its recommendation for the appointment of advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan as a judge of the Bombay High Court.

    The three-member Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, noted the apex court body had recommended Sundaresan’s name for judgeship on February 16 last year and, on November 25, 2022, the government had sought reconsideration.

    “The ground on which reconsideration of the candidature of Shri Sundaresan has been sought is that he has aired his views in the social media on several matters which are the subject matter of consideration before the courts,” said a statement uploaded on the apex court website.

    It said, “Having considered the objection to the candidature of Shri Somasekhar Sundaresan, the Collegium is of the view that the views on social media attributed to the candidate, do not furnish any foundation to infer that he is biased.”

    It said the issues on which opinions have been attributed to him are in the public domain and have been extensively deliberated upon in the media.

    “The manner in which the candidate has expressed his views does not justify the inference that he is a ‘highly biased opinionated person’ or that he has been ‘selectively critical on the social media on the important policies, initiatives and directions of the Government’ (as indicated in the objections of Department of Justice) nor is there any material to indicate that the expressions used by the candidate are suggestive of his links with any political party with strong ideological leanings,” the statement said.

    It said all citizens have the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

    “Expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office so long as the person proposed for judgeship is a person of competence, merit and integrity,” the statement said.

    ALSO READ | Govt can’t repeatedly send back proposals, says SC Collegium

    It said Sundaresan has specialised in commercial law and would be an “asset” to the Bombay High Court which has a large volume of cases of commercial and securities laws, among other branches.

    “The Department of Justice has adverted to paragraph 175 of the Second Judges Case to the effect that the candidate to be selected must possess high integrity, honesty, skill, high order of emotional stability, firmness, serenity, legal soundness, ability and endurance. The candidate fulfils these qualities,” the statement said.

    It said the Collegium is of the considered view that Sundaresan deserves to be appointed as a judge of the Bombay High Court.

    “The Collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated February 16, 2022, for appointment of Shri Somasekhar Sundaresan, advocate, as judge of the Bombay High Court,” it said.

    The statement also noted that the Collegium of the Bombay High Court had on October 4, 2021, recommended Sundaresan’s elevation.

    The top court has often voiced displeasure over the alleged delay by the Centre in clearing the names recommended by the Collegium for appointment as judges to the Supreme Court and high courts.

    At a hearing on January 6, the apex court had said it is a “matter of concern” that the government is sending back the names reiterated by the Collegium for judgeship in constitutional courts despite there being nothing in the present scenario to prevent the appointment post reiteration.

    ALSO READ | ‘Collegium law of the land, has to be followed’: SC raps Centre over NJAC 

    NEW DELHI: Expression of views by a candidate proposed for judgeship does not disentitle him from holding a constitutional post as long as he has competence, merit and integrity, the Supreme Court Collegium has said while reiterating its recommendation for the appointment of advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan as a judge of the Bombay High Court.

    The three-member Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, noted the apex court body had recommended Sundaresan’s name for judgeship on February 16 last year and, on November 25, 2022, the government had sought reconsideration.

    “The ground on which reconsideration of the candidature of Shri Sundaresan has been sought is that he has aired his views in the social media on several matters which are the subject matter of consideration before the courts,” said a statement uploaded on the apex court website.

    It said, “Having considered the objection to the candidature of Shri Somasekhar Sundaresan, the Collegium is of the view that the views on social media attributed to the candidate, do not furnish any foundation to infer that he is biased.”

    It said the issues on which opinions have been attributed to him are in the public domain and have been extensively deliberated upon in the media.

    “The manner in which the candidate has expressed his views does not justify the inference that he is a ‘highly biased opinionated person’ or that he has been ‘selectively critical on the social media on the important policies, initiatives and directions of the Government’ (as indicated in the objections of Department of Justice) nor is there any material to indicate that the expressions used by the candidate are suggestive of his links with any political party with strong ideological leanings,” the statement said.

    It said all citizens have the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

    “Expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office so long as the person proposed for judgeship is a person of competence, merit and integrity,” the statement said.

    ALSO READ | Govt can’t repeatedly send back proposals, says SC Collegium

    It said Sundaresan has specialised in commercial law and would be an “asset” to the Bombay High Court which has a large volume of cases of commercial and securities laws, among other branches.

    “The Department of Justice has adverted to paragraph 175 of the Second Judges Case to the effect that the candidate to be selected must possess high integrity, honesty, skill, high order of emotional stability, firmness, serenity, legal soundness, ability and endurance. The candidate fulfils these qualities,” the statement said.

    It said the Collegium is of the considered view that Sundaresan deserves to be appointed as a judge of the Bombay High Court.

    “The Collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated February 16, 2022, for appointment of Shri Somasekhar Sundaresan, advocate, as judge of the Bombay High Court,” it said.

    The statement also noted that the Collegium of the Bombay High Court had on October 4, 2021, recommended Sundaresan’s elevation.

    The top court has often voiced displeasure over the alleged delay by the Centre in clearing the names recommended by the Collegium for appointment as judges to the Supreme Court and high courts.

    At a hearing on January 6, the apex court had said it is a “matter of concern” that the government is sending back the names reiterated by the Collegium for judgeship in constitutional courts despite there being nothing in the present scenario to prevent the appointment post reiteration.

    ALSO READ | ‘Collegium law of the land, has to be followed’: SC raps Centre over NJAC 

  • Government sending back names reiterated by Collegium matter of concern: Supreme Court

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said on Friday it is a “matter of concern” that the government is sending back the names reiterated by the Collegium for judgeship in constitutional courts despite there being nothing in the present scenario to prevent the appointment post reiteration.

    A bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka observed that nothing prevents the legislature from bringing in a better system for appointment of judges to constitutional courts but till the time the law holds it must be implemented.

    Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said even the names reiterated by the Collegium have been sent back by the government “That is a matter of concern. We have already flagged it in the last order,” said the bench, which was hearing a matter related to the alleged delay by the Centre in clearing the names recommended by the Collegium for appointment as judges to the Supreme Court and high courts.

    It said the government may have its own views when a recommendation is made but it can’t be kept on hold without sending back the comments on it. “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,” it said.

    The bench said every system has its positives and negatives and neither anyone is saying that there is a perfect system nor can there be a perfect system.

    Justice Kaul observed the grave concern is, “Are we creating an environment where meritorious people have hesitancy in giving their consent (for judgeship)? It is happening.”

    The bench said the delay in clearing the names deter people from giving consent.

    WEB SCRAWL | In defense of the collegium

    When the bench asked Attorney General R Venkataramani about the five names recommended by the collegium last month for elevation as judges of the apex court, he requested the court to defer it, saying he is looking into the matter.

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

    The bench also observed, “If you look at the statements made in the parliament and otherwise, the court itself at times has considered the view of the government and dropped names. That has also happened.”

    The top court said it is not that every name recommended by the high court’s Collegium goes through and this shows the scrutiny.

    It said there are people with different points of view and a court must reflect different philosophy and course of views.

    “I do believe when you join as a judge, you are here to do a job and trained yourself to do a job independently, dehors (other than, not including or outside the scope of) whatever may have been your political affiliations, what may have been the thought processes,” Justice Kaul said.

    He said there is a spectrum of thought process in appointment of judges and if a person has his or her own thought process, it does not mean he or she is aligned one way or the other. “Integrity of course is the first qualification,” the bench said.

    OPINION | Reform the court while protecting it

    Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who also appeared in the matter, raised the issue of seniority of a person whose name has been recommended.

    “We have had examples where seniority has been disturbed. Now a negative impact of that is that the collegiums will be very hesitant in sending the second list,” the bench said.

    On the issue raised by Bhushan that names reiterated by the Collegium have been sent back, the bench said the government in the last lot had returned some names which were pending.

    The apex court said some of the names sent back by the government were reiterated by the Collegium and some are those which the Collegium did not clear but the government in its wisdom felt they ought to be considered.

    The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on February 3.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said on Friday it is a “matter of concern” that the government is sending back the names reiterated by the Collegium for judgeship in constitutional courts despite there being nothing in the present scenario to prevent the appointment post reiteration.

    A bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka observed that nothing prevents the legislature from bringing in a better system for appointment of judges to constitutional courts but till the time the law holds it must be implemented.

    Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said even the names reiterated by the Collegium have been sent back by the government “That is a matter of concern. We have already flagged it in the last order,” said the bench, which was hearing a matter related to the alleged delay by the Centre in clearing the names recommended by the Collegium for appointment as judges to the Supreme Court and high courts.

    It said the government may have its own views when a recommendation is made but it can’t be kept on hold without sending back the comments on it. “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,” it said.

    The bench said every system has its positives and negatives and neither anyone is saying that there is a perfect system nor can there be a perfect system.

    Justice Kaul observed the grave concern is, “Are we creating an environment where meritorious people have hesitancy in giving their consent (for judgeship)? It is happening.”

    The bench said the delay in clearing the names deter people from giving consent.

    WEB SCRAWL | In defense of the collegium

    When the bench asked Attorney General R Venkataramani about the five names recommended by the collegium last month for elevation as judges of the apex court, he requested the court to defer it, saying he is looking into the matter.

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

    The bench also observed, “If you look at the statements made in the parliament and otherwise, the court itself at times has considered the view of the government and dropped names. That has also happened.”

    The top court said it is not that every name recommended by the high court’s Collegium goes through and this shows the scrutiny.

    It said there are people with different points of view and a court must reflect different philosophy and course of views.

    “I do believe when you join as a judge, you are here to do a job and trained yourself to do a job independently, dehors (other than, not including or outside the scope of) whatever may have been your political affiliations, what may have been the thought processes,” Justice Kaul said.

    He said there is a spectrum of thought process in appointment of judges and if a person has his or her own thought process, it does not mean he or she is aligned one way or the other. “Integrity of course is the first qualification,” the bench said.

    OPINION | Reform the court while protecting it

    Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who also appeared in the matter, raised the issue of seniority of a person whose name has been recommended.

    “We have had examples where seniority has been disturbed. Now a negative impact of that is that the collegiums will be very hesitant in sending the second list,” the bench said.

    On the issue raised by Bhushan that names reiterated by the Collegium have been sent back, the bench said the government in the last lot had returned some names which were pending.

    The apex court said some of the names sent back by the government were reiterated by the Collegium and some are those which the Collegium did not clear but the government in its wisdom felt they ought to be considered.

    The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on February 3.

  • Raising judges’ retirement age could extend service of non-performers: Justice dept to Par Panel

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Increasing the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges could extend the years of service of non-performing judges and might have a cascading effect with government employees raising similar demands, the Department of Justice told a parliamentary panel.

    It also said increasing the retirement age of judges would be considered along with measures to ensure transparency and accountability in appointments to the higher judiciary.

    In July, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had informed Parliament that there is no proposal to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges.

    The Department of Justice made a presentation before the parliamentary panel on Personnel, Law, and Justice that is chaired by BJP MP and former Bihar deputy chief minister Sushil Modi.

    The department in the Ministry of Law and Justice made the presentation that comprised details of judicial processes and reforms, including the possibility of increasing the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges.

    “Enhancing the age of retirement might extend benefits in terms of extended years of service in certain non-deserving cases and lead to non-performing and under-performing judges to continue,” the department said in its presentation.

    It also suggested that raising the retirement age of judges should be considered along with bringing down pending cases and bringing transparency to the judiciary.

    WEB SCRAWL | The spat between the executive and judiciary

    “It would be inappropriate if the increase in retirement age is considered along with other measures to ensure transparency, accountability in the appointments to the higher judiciary, effort to fill up existing vacancies in the district and subordinate judiciary and bringing down arrears of cases pending in courts,” the department said in its presentation.

    The department said increasing the retirement age may deprive tribunals of having retired judges as presiding officers or judicial members.

    It also cautioned that retirement age may have a cascading effect.

    “Enhancement of the retirement age of judges will have a cascading effect as government employees at Centre and state level, PSUs, commissions, etc, may raise similar demand. Therefore, this issue needs to be examined in totality,” the department said.

    Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65 years, and judges of the 25 high courts in the country retire at 62 years. The Constitution, 114th Amendment Bill was introduced in 2010 to increase the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years.

    However, it was not taken up for consideration in Parliament and lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.

    WEB SCRAWL | In defense of the collegium

    NEW DELHI: Increasing the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges could extend the years of service of non-performing judges and might have a cascading effect with government employees raising similar demands, the Department of Justice told a parliamentary panel.

    It also said increasing the retirement age of judges would be considered along with measures to ensure transparency and accountability in appointments to the higher judiciary.

    In July, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had informed Parliament that there is no proposal to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges.

    The Department of Justice made a presentation before the parliamentary panel on Personnel, Law, and Justice that is chaired by BJP MP and former Bihar deputy chief minister Sushil Modi.

    The department in the Ministry of Law and Justice made the presentation that comprised details of judicial processes and reforms, including the possibility of increasing the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges.

    “Enhancing the age of retirement might extend benefits in terms of extended years of service in certain non-deserving cases and lead to non-performing and under-performing judges to continue,” the department said in its presentation.

    It also suggested that raising the retirement age of judges should be considered along with bringing down pending cases and bringing transparency to the judiciary.

    WEB SCRAWL | The spat between the executive and judiciary

    “It would be inappropriate if the increase in retirement age is considered along with other measures to ensure transparency, accountability in the appointments to the higher judiciary, effort to fill up existing vacancies in the district and subordinate judiciary and bringing down arrears of cases pending in courts,” the department said in its presentation.

    The department said increasing the retirement age may deprive tribunals of having retired judges as presiding officers or judicial members.

    It also cautioned that retirement age may have a cascading effect.

    “Enhancement of the retirement age of judges will have a cascading effect as government employees at Centre and state level, PSUs, commissions, etc, may raise similar demand. Therefore, this issue needs to be examined in totality,” the department said.

    Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65 years, and judges of the 25 high courts in the country retire at 62 years. The Constitution, 114th Amendment Bill was introduced in 2010 to increase the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years.

    However, it was not taken up for consideration in Parliament and lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.

    WEB SCRAWL | In defense of the collegium

  • ‘Should not have happened’: SC condemns Law Minister Rijiju’s remarks on collegium

    By IANS

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday took strong exception to Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s recent comment on the collegium system of appointing judges, saying it should not have happened.

    The apex court said if the recommendations were withheld since the law passed by the Centre on setting up the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) could not pass the muster.

    A bench comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka said, “When someone in a high position says that…it should not have happened…”. The apex court clarified once the recommendation has been reiterated, the names have to be cleared. It further added that is the end of the matter as per the law as it stands on the day.

    Senior advocate Vikas Singh brought to the notice of the court Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s interview to a TV channel, wherein he had said, “Never say that the government is sitting on the files, then don’t send the files to the government, you appoint yourself, you run the show then”.

    He also said that the present Supreme Court collegium system through which judges are appointed is “opaque”. The “fittest” persons should be appointed as judges and not someone whom the collegium knows, he said. “I am not critical of the judiciary or the judges…I am not happy with the present system of the Supreme Court collegium. No system is perfect. We have to always strive and work towards a better system,” the minister had said.

    Justice Kaul told Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Centre, “I have ignored all press reports, but this has come from somebody high enough…….” He added, “I am not saying anything else. If we have to, we will take a decision”.

    The bench said, “We have expressed our anguish. It appears that the government is not happy that the NJAC has not passed the muster”.

    It further queried the Centre’s counsel, “Can that be the reason to not clear the names”.

    The bench said, “Please resolve this and don’t make us take a judicial decision in this regards”, and added that the whole process for appointment of judges already takes time.

    The bench said the Intelligence Bureau’s inputs are taken and also the Centre’s inputs are taken, and then the apex court collegium considers these inputs and sends the name.

    The bench asked the AG and Solicitor General to convey the “sentiments of the bench” to the government and ensure that the law of the land is followed.

    After hearing arguments, the bench scheduled the matter for further hearing on December 8.

    On November 11, the Supreme Court expressed its strong discontent over the delay in the appointment of judges, saying, “needless to say that unless the bench is adorned by competent lawyers, the very concept of rule of law and justice suffers”.

    A bench comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka said: “If we look at the position of pending cases for consideration, there are 11 cases pending with the Government which were cleared by the Collegium and yet are awaiting appointments. The oldest of them is of vintage September 4, 2021 as the date of dispatch and the last two on September 13, 2022. This implies that the government neither appoints the persons and nor communicates its reservation, if any, on the names”.

    It added there are also 10 names pending with the government which have been reiterated by the Supreme Court collegium starting from September 4, 2021 to July 18, 2022.

    The top court passed the order on the contempt plea filed by The Advocates Association Bengaluru through advocate Pai Amit. The plea said the Centre has not complied with the directions of the apex court in connection with the time schedule set for the appointment of judges.

    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday took strong exception to Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s recent comment on the collegium system of appointing judges, saying it should not have happened.

    The apex court said if the recommendations were withheld since the law passed by the Centre on setting up the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) could not pass the muster.

    A bench comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka said, “When someone in a high position says that…it should not have happened…”. The apex court clarified once the recommendation has been reiterated, the names have to be cleared. It further added that is the end of the matter as per the law as it stands on the day.

    Senior advocate Vikas Singh brought to the notice of the court Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s interview to a TV channel, wherein he had said, “Never say that the government is sitting on the files, then don’t send the files to the government, you appoint yourself, you run the show then”.

    He also said that the present Supreme Court collegium system through which judges are appointed is “opaque”. The “fittest” persons should be appointed as judges and not someone whom the collegium knows, he said. “I am not critical of the judiciary or the judges…I am not happy with the present system of the Supreme Court collegium. No system is perfect. We have to always strive and work towards a better system,” the minister had said.

    Justice Kaul told Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Centre, “I have ignored all press reports, but this has come from somebody high enough…….” He added, “I am not saying anything else. If we have to, we will take a decision”.

    The bench said, “We have expressed our anguish. It appears that the government is not happy that the NJAC has not passed the muster”.

    It further queried the Centre’s counsel, “Can that be the reason to not clear the names”.

    The bench said, “Please resolve this and don’t make us take a judicial decision in this regards”, and added that the whole process for appointment of judges already takes time.

    The bench said the Intelligence Bureau’s inputs are taken and also the Centre’s inputs are taken, and then the apex court collegium considers these inputs and sends the name.

    The bench asked the AG and Solicitor General to convey the “sentiments of the bench” to the government and ensure that the law of the land is followed.

    After hearing arguments, the bench scheduled the matter for further hearing on December 8.

    On November 11, the Supreme Court expressed its strong discontent over the delay in the appointment of judges, saying, “needless to say that unless the bench is adorned by competent lawyers, the very concept of rule of law and justice suffers”.

    A bench comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka said: “If we look at the position of pending cases for consideration, there are 11 cases pending with the Government which were cleared by the Collegium and yet are awaiting appointments. The oldest of them is of vintage September 4, 2021 as the date of dispatch and the last two on September 13, 2022. This implies that the government neither appoints the persons and nor communicates its reservation, if any, on the names”.

    It added there are also 10 names pending with the government which have been reiterated by the Supreme Court collegium starting from September 4, 2021 to July 18, 2022.

    The top court passed the order on the contempt plea filed by The Advocates Association Bengaluru through advocate Pai Amit. The plea said the Centre has not complied with the directions of the apex court in connection with the time schedule set for the appointment of judges.

  • SC Collegium recommends 13 names for elevation as judges in Allahabad High Court

    By ANI

    NEW DELHI: Supreme Court’s Collegium headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana has recommended names of 13 advocates for elevation as the judges of the Allahabad High Court.

    The apex court has approved the proposal for the elevation of the advocates in a meeting held on August 24, according to a statement issued by the top court.

    The judges include Chandra Kumar Rai, Shishir Jain, Krishan Pahal, Sameer Jain, Ashutosh Srivastava, Subhash Vidyarthi, Brij Raj Singh, Shree Prakash Singh, Vikas Budhwar, Vikram D Chauhan, Rishad Murtaza, Dhruv Mathur, and Vimlendu Tripathi, as per the statement.

    Meanwhile, Supreme Court’s Collegium also recommended 68 names in one go for elevation as Judges of various state High Courts to the Centre.

    This could be seen as a record number of recommendations by the Supreme Court’s Collegium in the recent past to the Centre for appointment of judges in various High Courts.

    In the meetings held recently, on August 25 and September 1, the Supreme Court’s Collegium considered the names of 112 candidates – 82 from the Bar and 31 from the Judicial Service. Among those 68 cleared for 12 High Courts, 44 are from the Bar and 24 are from the Judicial Service.

    The 12 High Courts, for which the names were recommended are, Allahabad, Rajasthan, Calcutta, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, Kerala, Chhattisgarh and Assam.

    The Supreme Court Collegium consists of five senior-most judges, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana, Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, A M Khanwilkar, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao. 

  • Will new collegium pave the way for first woman CJI?

    Express News Service
    NEW DELHI:  All eyes will now be on a collegium headed by the designated Chief Justice of India, N V Ramana, when he takes over from the present CJI S A Bobde on April 24, as to whether he will end the gender disparity visible in the top court along with the high courts and trial courts across the country.

    After CJI Bobde recently made remarks that women lawyers are turning down judgeship citing family responsibilities, many women lawyers associations have come forward and said they are willing to take the responsibility if offered. Under these circumstances, the decision made by the new collegium is crucial to fix the gender imbalance in the judiciary.

    Since Independence, the country never had a woman CJI and only eight women judges have reached the Supreme Court. At present, Justice Indira Banerjee is the lone women judge in the top court. Across 26 high courts, there are only 82 women judges out of 1,079 judges. Madras tops the list with 13, followed by Punjab and Haryana High Court that has 11 women judges.

    Delhi and Bombay High Courts have eight women judges each, while there is one each in Gauhati, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Sikkim. Sources said the collegium is already considering the names of a few women judges. Name of senior Judge B V Nagarathna from the Karnataka High Court is doing the rounds and if she is elevated now, she will be in line to become the first woman CJI in 2027.

    Similarly, Telangana HC Justice Hima Kohli’s name is also being discussed. If appointed now she would have a tenure till 2024 or else she will retire in September this year. Though there are no fixed rules for the appointment of a judge to the top court, seniority and regional representation are usually the major criteria.