Jahanvi Agarwal
On 26th September 2023, the Supreme Court criticized the Centre for delaying action on 70 recommendations for the appointment and transfer of High Court Judges, signaling the beginning of a new round of conflict between the government and judiciary over judicial appointment after a seven-month pause.
Justice Kaul asserted to Attorney General of India R Venkataramani that:
“Won’t be quiet at next hearing. Today, I am quiet because AG has sought a very short time… next time I will not be quiet. Use your good offices to see to it these issues are resolved.”
There were eighty recommendations forwarded to the Centre, ten of which were cleared last week. Of the remaining seventy, the SC Bench noted that 26 were for transfers, seven were for reiterations, nine were not returned to the Collegium, and one was for the appointment of a CJ to the sensitive Manipur High Court.
The Collegium procedure for judicial appointment, which has been in effect since 1993, has been a bone of contention between the SC and the government for quite some time. In December of last year, the former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju referred to it as “alien” to the Constitution.
Justice Kaul is a member of the SC Collegium, which oversees the nomination of judges to the higher court and is the second-most senior judge after CJI DY Chandrachud.
The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia instructed AG to put pressure on the Centre to proceed with the names recommended for appointment and transfer of High Court Judges while hearing a petition filed by the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, alleging “wilful disobedience” of the time frame laid down to facilitate timely appointment of judges in its April 20, 2021 order.
The bench, which also included Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, postponed the case for further hearing on October 9 as Venkataramani promised to return to the High Court with instructions from the government.
The subject matter will be discussed every 10 to 12 days, according to Justice Kaul, who is retiring on December 25. This would allow for a significant amount of work to be completed before his departure. Senior Advocate Arvind P. Dattar argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Centre needs to be given a “hard push” in order to meet the deadline.