The Supreme Court on Monday said it may not be “advisable” to hold up the entire judicial appointment process and insist that the government first clear names earlier recommended or reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said there is, at times, a lot of back and forth between the Collegium and the government during the appointment process. This may include additional inputs from the government, who may continue to have reservations about names recommended or even reiterated by the Collegium for judgeships.
“In this process of back and forth, it may not be advisable that all appointment processes are kept at bay for the time being… Sometimes, we make mistakes, we recall [names]. we are not infallible,” Justice Kaul said.
The court was responding to concerns raised by senior advocate Arvind Datar and advocate Prashant Bhushan about how certain names recommended or reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium remain in limbo, sometimes for months and months together, while some names forwarded later on by the Collegium are cleared, if not overnight, at least without delay.
“The names of two people from Kerala High Court were reiterated in November 2019… we are now in 2023… what happens to their seniority? Other appointments have happened in the meanwhile…” Mr. Datar asked.
Mr. Bhushan referred to the case of advocate R. John Sathyan, who was recommended by the top court Collegium for Madras High Court judgeship in February 2022 and reiterated in January this year.
The court objected to Mr. Bhushan’s suggestion that candidates should be “deemed” to have been appointed as judges if the government sits on their reiterated files. “There are no ‘deemed’ appointments. The President issues the warrant of appointment for judges,” Justice Kaul said.
At one point, Justice Kaul too acknowledged that “there should not be too much of a pick-and-choose” by the government while clearing names for appointments.
“People do lose seniority… it is a challenge to persuade people to join (the Bench)... it is becoming more of a herculean task,” Justice Kaul ruminated.
Justice Kaul however made a passing remark that Mr. Sathyan “may be” one of the names recently cleared by the government.
The comparatively softer, more introspective and diplomatic tenor of comments from the Bench on Monday may have been influenced by a “positive development” which happened a couple of days before the October 9 hearing.
Justice Kaul announced that “60 to 70 names” recommended by High Court Collegiums across the country, and pending with the government since November 2022, were forwarded to the Supreme Court Collegium for vetting in the past two days.
“The passage of files from the government to the Supreme Court Collegium is taking too long… You should forward the files without our intervention,” Justice Kaul addressed the Centre, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani.
Now, it is up to the top court to examine these files and give its verdict on the proposed names for judicial appointments. Justice Kaul said the Collegium was working hard to provide the government with its recommendations on the names ahead of the Dussehra holidays.
“The views of the consultee judges on the names are required. The process is underway. It will be done at the earliest,” Justice Kaul said.
Besides, Justice Kaul said the Centre has agreed to notify the appointment of Delhi High Court judge, Justice Siddharth Mridul, as the Chief Justice of Manipur High Court shortly. The Collegium had proposed his name in July.
Justice Kaul said the government has said it has cleared the transfers of 14 High Court judges. The remaining 12 proposed transfers are being looked into.
A list of 19 names recommended or reierates for High Court judgeships lie pending with the government. Of this, Mr. Venkataramani informed that five had been cleared. The names include appointments to Karnataka and Madras High Courts, it was indicated.
