A bench of Sanjay judges Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka said the government was not following the guidelines formulated by the court last year for appointing judges in a time-limited manner. He said many prominent lawyers disagreed to take up the post of judge due to the Centre’s approach and many of them had withdrawn their consent, which was a loss for the rule of law and the judiciary as it is hard to find deserving people willing to become judges.
As many as 68 recommendations pending before the government of which 11 were names that the college had reiterated, which by court order becomes binding for the government to accept. The court was hearing an outrage petition filed by The Advocates’ Association Bengaluru via attorney Pai Amit, claiming the government was sitting on some recommendations made way back in 2019 and subsequently resented by the college.
“It may be noted that among the names for which government review was requested and the college reiterated their names, those people were also not named. One person also withdrew her consent and the system lost an eminent person from the forum… In another case, the reiteration was done three times. Keeping names pending is not acceptable. It is becoming a kind of gimmick to force people to withdraw their names (from the judge), “the bench said.
The bench noted that attorney Jaytosh Majumdar was recommended in 2019 and the recommendation was reiterated by the SC board, but his name was not cleared and he recently passed away. “It goes without saying that unless the bench is adorned with eminent people, the rule of law and justice suffers,” the bench said. Although the court was hearing an outrage petition, it refrained from issuing an outrage notice and issued a simple notice to the secretary (justice) and additional secretary (administration and appointment).
Senior lawyer Vika Singh it also brought to the court’s knowledge that the SC college had recommended the elevation of the Chief Justice of Bombay HC in September Dipankar Gupta at the apex court but the Center had not rehabilitated his name, unlike other names that had been canceled in a few days.
Last year the apex court had defined comprehensive guidelines for the appointment of fixed-term judges and set time frames for all authorities involved in the process for making decisions. He said the intelligence office (IB) should submit its report / input within four to six weeks from the date of the high court’s college recommendation to the Center, which should forward the file to SC within eight to 12 weeks of the date. of receiving opinions from the state and IB report. The President of the Supreme Court of India should then send recommendations / advice to the Minister of Law within four weeks and the Center should immediately fix the appointment or send the recommendation for reconsideration. If the names are reiterated, the Center should make an appointment within three to four weeks.
Noting that HCs with 40% vacancies are in “a crisis situation”, the apex court had approved the ordinance as there was no prescribed timeline for the central government to pass recommendations, which was causing a excessive delay in the appointment of judges
Claiming that there had been willful disobedience to the 2021 Supreme Court verdict, the petitioner called for an outrage proceeding against government officials and management to ensure strict compliance with the court’s terms.
