Collegium picks 2 judges for SC in first detailed resolution

0
75

[google-translator]

New Delhi The Supreme Court collegium on Tuesday recommended two sitting chief justices of high courts for elevation to the top court, issuing a detailed resolution that specified the selection procedure and the yardsticks which guided the judges’ selection body to pick them.

Allahabad high court chief justice Rajesh Bindal and Gujarat high court chief justice Aravind Kumar were recommended for their appointment to the Supreme Court following the collegium meetings on Monday and Tuesday.

The collegium for the selection of judges in the top court comprised Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, KM Joseph, MR Shah, Ajay Rastogi, and Sanjiv Khanna.

While all the collegium members were unanimous on justice Bindal, justice KM Joseph expressed his reservations over justice Aravind Kumar’s name on the grounds that his name can be considered at a later stage, according to the resolution published on the court website on Tuesday evening.

Marking a departure from the past practices when only the names used to be released, the resolution laid bare the criteria of selection and the bouquet of considerations made by collegium while making the recommendations to the Centre.

The resolution said that the collegium deliberated on and discussed the names of chief justices and senior puisne judges of all the high courts eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court. Judgments authored by those falling in the zone of consideration were circulated among the members of the collegium for a meaningful discussion on and assessment of their judicial acumen, it added.

“After carefully evaluating the merit, integrity and competence of eligible chief justices and senior puisne judges of the high courts and also accommodating a plurality of considerations, the collegium finds the following persons (justices Bindal and Kumar) to be more deserving and suitable in all respects for being appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court of India,” noted the resolution.

The collegium, in a first, also explicitly maintained that while recommending the names, a raft of factors including the seniority of the high court judges, their merit, performance and integrity of the judges, were taken into account.

It underscored that the need to ensure diversity and inclusion in the Supreme Court also remained one of the relevant criteria that prompted the collegium to consider representation of high courts which are not represented or are inadequately represented in the Supreme Court; appointing persons from marginalised and backward segments of society; gender diversity; and representation of minorities.

The resolution added that the names recommended earlier by the collegium by its resolution dated December 13, 2022 shall have precedence over the two names being recommended now. “Therefore, the appointments of five judges recommended on December 13, 2022 should be notified separately and earlier in point of time before the two judges recommended by this resolution,” maintained the collegium.

On December 13, the collegium recommended the names of Rajasthan high court chief justice Pankaj Mithal, Patna high court chief justice Sanjay Karol, Manipur high court chief justice PV Sanjay Kumar, Patna high court judge Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Allahabad high court judge Manoj Misra for elevation to the top court. Their appointments are yet to be cleared by the Union government.

At present, the Supreme Court, with a sanctioned strength of 34, has a shortfall of seven judges. Following the recommendations on Tuesday, names for all seven vacancies have been sent to the government.

The notable deviation by the justice Chandrachud-led collegium in putting out detailed reasons in public domain comes at a time when Union law minister Kiren Rijiju has criticised the collegium system, calling it “opaque”, “non-transparent” and “alien” to the Constitution.

Over the last few months, Rijiju has repeatedly said that the Constitution did not envisage a collegium system by the judges to appoint judges and that the Supreme Court judges spend too much time in the selection process.

On January 6, Rijiju wrote to CJI Chandrachud, asserting the need to have a search-cum-evaluation committee (SEC) for bringing in more transparency and objectivity in the process of judicial appointments through the collegium system. He underlined that the government is an “important stakeholder in the process of appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and high courts” and, therefore, its views should also find a place in preparation of the names eligible for being appointed as judges of constitutional courts.

Issuing yet another statement critical of the judiciary in the ongoing executive-judiciary row over the process of judges’ appointments, the law minister on January 23 said that judges do not have to face elections or public scrutiny but they are still assessed by the people for their judgments and the way they function.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, too, weighed in questioning the top court for striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (NJAC) which sought to give the government a greater role in judicial appointments.

In its retort, the Supreme Court in December advised the government functionaries to “exercise control”, and stressed that the Union government is bound to follow the collegium system “to a T” because that is the law of the land.


Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here