Citing its own probe, Collegium junks IB report on judge for High Court

The collegium, which met last week to make the recommendation, informed the Law Ministry that its own inquiry found nothing substantially adverse against the district judge concerned to stop the elevation.

Written by Utkarsh Anand | New Delhi | Updated: September 8, 2016 5:01 am
Intelligence Bureau, Intelligence Bureau  report, chief justice of india, judges appointment, appointment of judges, transparency in appointmnet, transparency in judges appointment, delhi high court, collegium, law ministry, IB report, Memorandum of Procedure, J Chelameswar, indian express news, india news In its communication to the government, the collegium said it did not approve of the IB report nor was it bound by the opinion rendered in such reports. (Representational image)

Overruling an adverse report from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and other objections by the government, a three-member collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India has sought the appointment of a serving judicial officer, a district judge, as a judge of the Delhi High Court.

The collegium, which met last week to make the recommendation, informed the Law Ministry that its own inquiry found nothing substantially adverse against the district judge concerned to stop the elevation.

In its communication to the government, the collegium said it did not approve of the IB report nor was it bound by the opinion rendered in such reports.

The IB report, sent by the Ministry to the collegium, had raised questions over the district judge’s reputation. The government had also cited certain clauses of the proposed Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) to oppose his appointment, flagging credibility of the institution and public interest.

But the collegium reminded the Ministry that the MoP was yet to be finalised and since the collegium had not approved many of the recommendations by the government, it would not be proper to flag contentious clauses in resisting any appointment.

Last week, Justice J Chelameswar, a member of the five-judge collegium, opted out of collegium meetings citing “non-transparency”. In a letter to the CJI, he sought preparation of the minutes of such meetings.