‘Don’t Treat Collegium like a Search Committee, Not to Unearth Skeletons…’, SC to Centre on Judges’ Appointment

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Friday told the Centre that the collegium is not a search committee since it has a certain status in terms of the constitutional fabric. The court underscored that ultimately the idea is not to unearth skeletons in the cupboard but to move forward with the business of governance.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Friday told the Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, to not treat its collegium like a search committee and emphasized that ultimately the idea is not to unearth skeletons in the cupboard but to move forward. The apex court asked the Centre to bring on record information about the numbers and names, which were reiterated by the collegium of the apex court for appointment as judges in higher judiciary with reasons why they were not considered so far and, also at what level they were pending.

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and comprising justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, “Mr Attorney General come out with a chart and tell us, what is status of each one of the recommendations which have been reiterated by the collegium (of the apex court) and what is the difficulty in making those appointments because the collegium is not a search committee. It has a certain status in terms of the constitutional fabric….”. The AG, replying in affirmative, said that there is no doubt about it at all.

The CJI said, “when the search committee makes a recommendation then is absolute discretion whether to accept it or not, the recommendation of the search committee. You come back to us and tell us what is the status of those which are pending…”.

The CJI, said, “Ultimately Mr Attorney General, the idea is not to unearth skeletons in the cupboard but to move forward so that the business of governance proceeds, that is all”. The AG replied that it is well understood.

The bench asked the AG make a list of the names reiterated by the apex court's collegium and why it is pending and at what level it is pending, and also why it is pending.

After hearing submissions, the bench adjourned the matter, taking into account the request for postponement by the attorney general.

During the hearing, when the counsel for the parties’ raised the issue of Centre delaying the appointments in the higher judiciary, the AG said that he will do whatever the apex court tell him and he will put objection to the maintainability of such a writ petition, and added, “I will put in my note on that”. A counsel said he had filed a contempt petition. The AG replied that he will answer it. When senior advocate Kapil Sibal began to argue and submitted, “not for the Attorney General…”.

Sibal’s argument irked the AG, who shot back saying, “do not make it sensitive beyond a point that is what I am telling you ... Mr Kapil Sibal can take charge of all appointments. I have no difficulty about it. Do not say not for the Attorney General.....”.

Sibal told the AG not to make it personal and added, “we are talking of institutions…”. AG said all of us are talking about institutions and, in a strong tone, replied, “talking about institutions is not somebody’s private prerogative. Sibal said “it seems to be your….”

The apex court was hearing a PIL seeking a direction that a time limit be fixed for the Centre to notify the appointment of judges recommended by the Supreme Court collegium. The PIL was filed by advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal.

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan referred to the name of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, who has not been appointed as a high court judge despite reiteration by the apex court collegium.

The Jharkhand government has also moved the top court against the Centre for not clearing the recommendation made by the collegium to appoint Justice M S Ramachandra Rao as the chief justice of the Jharkhand High Court.