Monday, April 29, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Judicial appointments: Supreme Court appreciates Centre for notifying appointments, transfers; says need to unstuck the stuck

The Supreme Court on Friday appreciated the Union government for clearing a number of appointment and transfer recommendations over the past 15 days.

However, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manoj Misra again expressed its concerns over the segregation of names and certain collegium proposals, which were pending before the Central government.

The Apex Court made the observation while hearing two petitions highlighting the issue of delay in judicial appointments. 

The first petition was filed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru (AAB) seeking contempt action against the Union Ministry of Law and Justice for not adhering to the timeline set by the Court in a 2021 judgment for clearing collegium proposals by November 7, 2023. 

The second was a writ petition filed by the non-profit Centre for Public Interest Litigation highlighting the delay in judicial appointments.

The Apex Court noted that when the Union government split up a single collegium resolution to pick some names and omit others, it led to disruption of seniority. When one person was appointed and the other wasn’t, the whole concept of seniority got disturbed.

As per the Bench, the issue also arose in some transfer proposals, where some judges were transferred upon the recommendations and some were not. 

Calling appointments a consultative process, the top court of the country said transfers were for those people, who were already judges, adding that there was wisdom of five senior judges in these transfers.

Representing the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General of India Balbir Singh sought additional time to apprise the Bench with the progress made by the Central government in clearing the Collegium recommendations.

The Apex Court noted that it did not think there were serious issues regarding some of the recommendations for the government to not consider them. 

It said if the Centre notified three out of four recommendations and held back on one, it led to reduced incentive for people to join the Bench. Stating that this should not happen, it said some people accepted the decision of the Union government, while some had withdrawn out of frustration. The Court lost out on a lot of good names due to this, it pointed out. 

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave contended that many young lawyers were no longer interested in being promoted to the Bench due to inordinate delay in clearing of names by the Union government.

It pointed out that as the matter stood now, there were five reiterated names, five fresh names and 11 transfers pending.

The ASG assured the Court that the matters were being sorted out and sought listing of the matter for further hearing on November 7.

Stating that there was a need to ‘unstuck the stuck,’ the Bench said some of the names cleared recently have been appointed within a span of weeks. Calling it a ‘positive development,’ the Apex Court said the current process was going well.

spot_img

News Update