Petitions against delays by the government and its “pick-and-choose policy” in judicial appointments and transfers were not listed on Tuesday before Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul despite a specific direction from the Bench in the last hearing on November 20.
The petition was orally mentioned by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Amit Pai, lawyers for the petitioner Advocates Association of Bengaluru, before the Bench of Justices Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia. However, Justice Kaul said he had not “deleted” the case from the day’s list of cases.
Very strange
Mr. Bhushan remarked it was “very strange” the case did not find a place in the December 5 causelist despite a specific judicial order. He requested the judges to ask the Supreme Court Registry for an explanation.
“I am sure the Chief Justice is aware of it… Yesterday I found it was deleted. I checked up,” Justice Kaul said.
The Bench has in the past put the government in the dock for its selective appointments and transfers to High Courts. The government had also been found sitting on names, recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for judicial appointments and transfers, for months together.
Justice Kaul, who is retiring on December 25, had made it a point to convey to the government, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani, that he would be posting the case for hearing on regular intervals to monitor the government’s clearance of judicial appointments and transfers until the end of his tenure.
On November 20, the Bench highlighted how the Collegium’s recommendation to transfer judges, including four from the Gujarat High Court, were still awaiting government clearance.
In August, the Supreme Court recommended the transfer of Gujarat High Court judge, Justice HM Prachchhak, to Patna High Court for “better administration of justice”. Justice Prachchhak had refused to stay the two-year conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case filed by Gujarat BJP lawmaker Purnesh Modi for the ‘Modi surname’ remarks in a political rally in 2019. The conviction was stayed by the Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice BR Gavai, who is a member of the apex court collegium.
The Bench had repeatedly said the government had “little to do” with judicial transfers. It was the judiciary which decided whether a particular judge should work in court ‘A’ or court ‘B’.
In the last hearing, Justice Kaul had said the government was tinkering with judicial seniority through “selective” appointments and transfers of High Court judges. He cautioned that such meddling may trigger responses from the collegiums which may create “embarrassing” outcomes like deferring the swearing-in of new judges or withdrawing of judicial work.
