Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jharkhand govt, which has filed a contempt petition for delay in implementing collegium recommendation for appointment of the last two chief justices for the state, alleged that the Centre either “delays or maintains a stoic silence” on appointment of judges.
While dealing with a PIL for laying down a timeline for govt to implement collegium recommendations, a bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud said, “Names for appointment as chief justices of various HCs are expected to be notified soon. Let us wait till next week.”
SC: Collegium is not a search committee
A bench led by Justice Sanjay K Kaul had, for a year prior to his retirement in Dec last year, kept the heat on Centre to expedite appointment of persons recommended by SC collegium for HC judgeship and criticised the govt’s “pick and choose” approach.
While seeking status of pendency of collegium recommended names, SC bench reminded govt Friday that “Collegium is not a search committee. It has a certain status in the constitutional fabric. In case of a search committee’s recommendation, there is an absolute discretion (with the govt) whether to accept the names or not.”
Attorney general R Venkataramani said he was not sure to what extent the court could enter into a deliberation on this contentious issue. The bench said, “AG, you tell us by next week the status of pending names recommended by the collegium.”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan said those collegium resolutions reiterating names for appointment as HC judges, after rejecting the govt’s objections, must be given effect immediately. He said over a dozen reiterated names, including that of senior advocate Saurav Kirpal, by the collegium is not acted upon by the govt for years.
“Often govt sits over initial recommendations for years,” Bhushan said, adding that if a name remains pending for six weeks without the govt spelling out objections, then it should be deemed to have been accepted. Under Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges, govt has no option but appoint collegium reiterated names.
The bench said, “AG, we will keep the matter after some time as some of the appointments are in the pipeline. We are expecting the chief justices’ appointments to come through soon. If AG can prepare a tabular chart specifying the names which have been reiterated by the collegium and explain the difficulties in appointing them. Please specify the names which are reiterated, why they are pending and at which level.”
The AG said, “There is no difficulty in filing such a chart. But there cannot be a petition for every appointment and why it is not being done. I do not know to what extent the court can enter that deliberation.”
Venkataramani reiterated his serious reservations about maintainability of the writ petitions seeking appointment of some names recommended by the collegium.