New Delhi: The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that it will soon issue a notification for appointment of the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court. At the beginning of the hearing, a bench comprising justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia informed the petitioners’ counsel that there is a positive development, as the names forwarded by the High Court collegium have been sent to the apex court collegium by the ministry so in that respect there's no pendency. However, the bench told Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, said, “Why does it require our intervention to get things moving…”.
The bench told senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing a petitioner, “All names (candidates recommended as judges of various High Courts) received by them up to the end of June have been forwarded to the collegium. They said all these names are pending before the collegium….these names have come in the last two-three days, this week onwards we are in process of analysing the names…will do it in next two weeks”. On September 26, the apex court expressed its concern over the pendency of 70 names (for the appointment of High Court judges), which have been pending for 10 months.
Today, the apex court said there is no overdue pendency of names and secondly, regarding the appointment of the Chief Justice of Manipur concerned, the Central government is soon going to ensure notification, and “for transfer (of judges), they say they are implementing transfers….”.
The apex court collegium headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had on July 5 recommended the appointment of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Siddharth Mridul as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court. The bench noted that from the original list of reiterated names and recommended names (of judges), the total comes to 19 (total reiterated names 10 and sent for the first time nine).
The AG said as far as Allahabad High Court is concerned there are five names, which have been sent back. Datar said for Kerala High Court, two people were recommended for judgeship first sent in 2019 and reiterated in November 2019, and now we are almost in November 2023. Datar said now after four years it should not take so long and raised issues regarding the seniority of candidates recommended.
Also read: SC paves way for restoration of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal's LS membership
The AG said on those two names, the matter has come back to the collegium (headed by the Chief Justice of India) and the High Court has sent some inputs. The bench observed that the problem arises (with the candidates for judgeship) when the government has raised an objection and the apex court collegium overrules them. “There the government has a right to say you may have cleared it, we still have some reservation, so they send it back….when they come back and collegium reiterates ( the names)…..in some situation, a view has prevailed and recommendation has been recalled or further inputs are sought. When a name has been reiterated then an appointment must take place, you are right”, the bench told Datar, while referring to different situations.
The bench said the positive development is that almost 70 judges’ names are pending with the ministry starting from November 2022, all of them have come before the apex court collegium. The bench told the petitioners’ counsel that the appointment of the Chief Justice of a sensitive High Court has received the government's attention and they are doing it now. Pointing at remaining issues, Justice Kaul said, “Reiterated names, what happens to them….there should not be, too, much of pick and choose as people lose seniority in the bargain….they may not accept it. I am finding it a challenge to persuade whom I think should be judges….to come on this side of the bench. It becomes a more Herculean task than before….”.
Voicing his concerns over the delay in judges’ appointment, advocate Prashant Bhushan, said after reiteration of names for judgeship they should be deemed to have been appointed. The bench asked Bhushan, how does a deemed appointment work? There is a warrant of appointment issued by the President of India, how can there be deemed an appointment? Justice Kaul said, “The President does not sign the warrant, then what happens…there are complications…”.
The apex court, in its order, noted that regarding the issue of the transfer of 26 judges of High Courts -- files in 14 cases have been cleared and notification will be issued shortly, in respect to the remaining 12 cases, it is stated to be under process. The bench said, “As far as the appointment of Chief Justice of a High Court, which has been pending for a considerable time, and that, too, for a sensitive state (Manipur), it is submitted that file has been cleared, and notification will be issued shortly."
Concluding the hearing, Justice Kaul said by the next date, “I want this to be done. Don't make me...I'm being very polite. Let me be polite”. The apex court was hearing two pleas, including the one alleging delay by the Centre in clearing the names recommended by the collegium for appointment and transfer of judges. The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on October 20.
