New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it is troublesome when the appointment process is split between some of the names recommended for judgeship by the apex court collegium being appointed and some not, as the Centre urged the apex court to give it two weeks’ time to take decision on appointment and transfer of judges in High Courts recommended by the collegium.
A bench comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Manoj Misra noted that five names, which were reiterated by the collegium, five fresh names recommended for judgeship and transfer of 11 High Court judges are pending with the Centre. During the hearing, Justice Kaul said, "Let us not take it to a level where we have to say….we appreciate what has been done but more push is necessary".
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Balbir Singh, representing the Centre, sought two weeks from the court and agreed with the court’s view that a push is necessary. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing a petitioner, said the government’s counsel tells the court that do not interfere in transfers at all and in transfer they pick and choose, and "they have selectively transferred some people, who were recommended on October 3 and October 10, but they have not transferred….”.
Justice Kaul said, “That is troublesome and the other issue troublesome is, where the appointment process is split between some being appointed and some not…”. Dave raised the issue of the appointment of R John Sathyam as a judge of a High Court, which has not been cleared by the Centre so far. In January this year, the Supreme Court Collegium reiterated its February 16, 2022 recommendation for appointing advocate R John Sathyam as a judge of the Madras High Court, brushing aside the objections of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to his social media posts, including the one critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Also read: SC imposes Rs 1 lakh cost on a petitioner against restoration of NCP Lok Sabha membership
Justice Dhulia asked Singh, “Suppose there are four names. You notify four and hold back on one, what about that? You have said nothing on that?” Singh said “On segregation, I understand that the impact is ultimately on seniority...”. Justice Kaul stressed that some people are accepted and some people out of frustration withdraw their candidature from the judges’ appointment process, “We have lost good people and I keep saying it is a challenge to make people come to this side (on the bench) and it becomes a greater challenge to make people come to this side when this happens”.
Dave said a lot of people don’t participate in the judges’ appointment process because of these reasons. Justice Kaul said, “I am talking about people whom I have endeavoured to persuade", and these reasons are cited and he is not able to persuade them. Singh said the push from the court has worked and in the next two weeks things will get better. Justice Kaul said five reiterated names of judges are pending and five names recommended for the first time are pending, and 11 transfers of judges are pending, apart from that there are 11-12 names, but they are post-July pending. Singh replied in the affirmative. Dave emphasised appointment of judges should be made timely and that the time period should be fixed.
Justice Kaul said the delay in the appointment of judges cannot be 10 months. Dave said some appointments have been cleared in 24 hours. Justice Kaul said the positive development is that some of the names recommended by the collegium for judgeship have been appointed by the Centre in two weeks. Justice Kaul said the collegium recommended two names for judgeship in the Delhi High Court, which have been cleared by the Centre, and some other names cleared by the collegium two weeks ago have also been notified by the government.
“Process is working well, but we have to unstick the stuck”, said Justice Kaul. Singh insisted after two weeks the situation would change positively. The apex court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 7. The apex court is hearing two petitions regarding the delay in the appointment of the judges to the higher judiciary.
