The government, despite a change of Union Law Minister, has continued its silence on a series of months-old Supreme Court Collegium recommendations on appointments to key High Courts.
One of them is a recommendation by the Collegium to appoint advocate R. John Sathyan as a judge of the Madras High Court.
Advocate Sathyan’s name was first recommended by the Collegium on February 16 last year. It was reiterated on January 18, 2023.
The Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had made it clear that names recommended earlier cannot be “overlooked” nor “withheld” indefinitely. The apex court itself, on the judicial side, by a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, had accused the government of pick-and-choose policy while notifying names for judgeships.
The government chose to disregard an instruction from the Collegium on March 21 that Mr. Sathyan’s appointment should be notified as Madras High Court judge first before any others in order to retain his seniority when it cleared Justice Victoria Gowri as a judge.
The government’s reluctance about Mr. Sathyan is sourced to an Intelligence Bureau report that he shared a web portal’s article critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and another regarding the death of a medical aspirant who was unable to clear the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) while portraying it as a “political betrayal.
But the Collegium had upheld Mr. Sathyan’s “right to free speech and expression”.
“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 Collegium had replied to the government.
The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan as a judge of the Bombay High Court in February last year. In November 2022, the government asked the Collegium to reconsider its recommendation. The Centre found Mr. Sundaresan a “highly opinionated person” who was “selectively critical on social media on the important policies, initiatives and directions of the government”.
But the Collegium stood firm by Mr. Sundaresan, telling the government there was “no material to indicate that the expressions used by the candidate [Mr. Sundaresan] are suggestive of his links with any political party with strong ideological leanings”. Whatever he said on social media was anyway part of public debate, the Collegium had reasoned.
Mr. Sundaresan has since then been a part of the apex court-appointed expert committee which recently gave its report in the Adani-Hindenburg case.
January 2023 also saw the Collegium stand up to the government’s objections about appointing senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, an openly gay lawyer, as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
Mr. Kirpal’s name was recommended five years ago by the Delhi High Court Collegium, in October 2017. The Supreme Court Collegium had approved his name in November 2021. The government had returned his file to the Collegium for reconsideration on November 25 last year.
In a transparent response published online, the Chandrachud Collegium laid bare the government’s objections about Mr. Kirpal’s choice of partner and his strong advocacy of same sex rights. The Collegium replied to the Centre that every individual was “entitled to maintain their own dignity and individuality based on sexual orientation”.
Mr. Kirpal was one of the leading lawyers for the petitioner side in the same-sex marriage case reserved for judgment by a Constitution Bench.
The beginning of the year had also seen the Collegium reiterate the names of advocates Amitesh Banerjee and Sakya Sen for Calcutta High Court judgeships. It had originally recommended these two names four years ago in December 2018. The government had returned them in November 2022 without citing any “fresh material or ground” for its objection.
