Tag: Judges appointment

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 

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.