New DelhiThe Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure over the delay by the Center in approving the names recommended by the collegium for appointment as judges in the higher judiciary, saying it “effectively thwarts” the manner of appointment. A bench of Justices SK Kaul and AS Oka noted that the three-judge bench of the apex court had fixed the time limit within which the appointment process was to be completed. It added that those timelines have to be adhered to. Justice Kaul said that it appears that the government is unhappy with the fact that the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act has not passed muster, but that cannot be a reason for not following the law of the land.
The top court in its 2015 judgment had struck down the NJAC Act and the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014, thereby reviving the existing judges’ collegium system of appointing judges to constitutional courts.
During the hearing on Monday, the apex court told Attorney General R Venkataramani that the ground reality is that the names recommended by the apex court collegium, including those reiterated, are not being cleared by the government.
“How does the system work?” The bench asked, “Our anguish we have already expressed. It appears to me, I would say, the displeasure of the government with the fact that the NJAC does not pass the muster,” Justice Kaul said.
Justice Kaul said that sometimes laws pass muster and sometimes not. “This cannot be a reason for not following the law of the land,” he said. The top court was hearing a plea alleging “willful disobedience” of the deadline set by the apex court in its order of April 20 last year to facilitate timely appointments.
The bench referred to the process followed for the appointment of judges in the apex court and high courts. It added, “Once the Collegium reiterates a name, this chapter is over,” he said, adding that there cannot be a situation where recommendations are being made and the government sits on them as this system disappoints.
It has been said that some names are pending with the government for one and a half years. “You are effectively thwarting the manner of appointment,” the bench said, adding that delay in the appointment process has led to some lawyers withdrawing their consent for promotion to the bench.
It said the government sometimes chooses only one name out of the names recommended by the collegium and it “totally disturbs” the seniority. The apex court said that the collegium recommends the names keeping in view the seniority aspect as well.
The Attorney General said that after the apex court passed the order in the matter on November 11, he had some discussion with a secretary-level officer and said he would come back to the court.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who had earlier assisted the apex court in the matter, referred to media reports on a statement by Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on the issue of appointments.
“How many statements do we pay attention to?” the bench asked. During the hearing, when Singh again referred to the media reports, Justice Kaul said, “I ignore all the press reports. When a high-ranking person says let them do it themselves, we will do it ourselves.” the bench said. “By keeping the names pending like this, it is transgressing the orthodoxy,” the court said.
The bench said that both Attorney General and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta are appearing in the matter. The bench said in a lighter vein, ‘So the double barrel gun should work.’
It said the Collegium has recommended names of Chief Justices for some High Courts and these recommendations are in cold storage. The bench said, “Everything has come to a standstill for the last two months.
The top court, which posted the matter for further hearing on December 8, said it expected the attorney general and the solicitor general to play the role of both to advise the government so that the law of the land is followed.
“As long as the law stands, it has to be followed,” it said. The top court had on November 11 expressed displeasure over the delay by the Center in clearing the names recommended for appointment as judges and said keeping them pending was “something not acceptable”.
It had issued notices to the Secretary (Justice) and Additional Secretary (Administration and Appointments) of the Union Law Ministry seeking their response on the plea.
The plea, filed by Advocates’ Association Bengaluru through advocate Pai Amit, has raised the issue of “inordinate delay” in the separation of names as well as appointment of judges in high courts, which is “detrimental to the cherished principle”. Independence of Judiciary”. It mentions 11 names which were recommended and later reiterated.
The petition states that failure to implement the binding decision of the Collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India, even on repetition, would amount to willful disobedience of the orders of the apex court.
The top court in its order in April last year had said that if the collegium unanimously reiterated its recommendations, the Center should appoint judges within three-four weeks.
Laying out timelines to streamline the process, it had said that the Center should proceed to make the appointment immediately after the names are recommended by the apex court collegium and if the government has any objection “on appropriateness or in public interest”. She can send them. back to the Collegium with specific reasons for reservation.