Supreme Court collegium rejects Govt’s no to 43 names for judges in high courts

On November 11, the Centre had informed the Supreme Court it had returned the 43 names for reconsideration.

By: Express News Service | New Delhi | Updated: November 19, 2016 9:00 am
Supreme court, SC collegium, supreme court and govt, CS judges, supreme court judges, High court judges, Judges appointment, MoP, CJI, CJI TS Thakur, collegium, Supreme Court, sc rejection, sc Collegium recommendations, sc collegium, collegium, supreme court, supreme court recommendations, sc recommendations, sc rejection, india news, indian express news Supreme Court of India was hearing a bunch of petitions relating to delay in appointment of judges. (File Photo)

The Supreme Court Friday said its collegium has refused to accept the government’s rejection of 43 names it had recommended for different high courts. “We (collegium) have already met. We have reiterated all the 43 names sent to us,” Chief Justice T S Thakur told Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi. The Attorney General expressed ignorance about the latest development, saying “I am not aware about it”.

On November 11, the Centre had informed the Supreme Court it had returned the 43 names for reconsideration.

The bench headed by the CJI was hearing a bunch of petitions relating to delay in appointment of judges. At an earlier hearing, the bench had asked the Centre if it wanted the entire judicial system to be “locked out”. It had also said it would not tolerate “logjam in judges’ appointment” and would intervene to “fasten accountability as the justice delivery system is collapsing”.

With the collegium reiterating all 43 names and since the old Memorandum of Procedure is still in place, the Centre has no option but to make the appointments once the collegium reiterates the names sent back to it.

The Supreme Court has taken the Centre to task for sitting on files for appointments to various high courts, pointing out that the collegium has been very careful in clearing names for appointments as judges in high courts.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

First Published on: November 19, 2016 2:55 am
  1. A
    Amit Kumar
    Nov 19, 2016 at 5:04 am
    All those who are against the government in this issue, do not realize that Judiciary is the only profession where corruption can not be stopped even if a government has 2/3rd majority in both houses. Unlike ALL other people and professionals.
    Reply
    1. A
      Amit Kumar
      Nov 19, 2016 at 5:00 am
      Government should make public the reason for the rejection of the names to shame the Judiciary.
      Reply
      1. P
        PN badri
        Nov 19, 2016 at 6:33 am
        Modi government fight with judiciary is unwarranted and we need collegium to stop/encroaching by corrupt political leaders interference to uphold justice.
        Reply
        1. B
          Bijan Mohanty
          Nov 18, 2016 at 6:12 pm
          Welcome move by the Apex court.
          Reply
          1. J
            Joseph R Stephen
            Nov 19, 2016 at 3:26 am
            It is shocking uneducated politicians who have not even pased 12th std are dictating who should be JUDGE.lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The government should accept the strongest recommendations of the Supreme court Judges and Chief Justice.
            Reply
            1. J
              Joseph R Stephen
              Nov 19, 2016 at 3:28 am
              The supreme court should also have arrested the Government officials for a day to send message to uneducated politicians that their interference in JUDICIAL WORK will not be tolerated.
              Reply
              1. K
                Kes
                Nov 19, 2016 at 6:55 am
                Govt had given reasons for each of the 43 names that it did not approve. By insisting on all 43 names again, the Collegium has only proved that its non-transparent method of selecting judges is highly suspect. Is Demonetization playing a role here?
                Reply
                1. R
                  Ramakrishnan Kinattukara
                  Nov 19, 2016 at 11:06 am
                  Except slaves of the congress first family everybody knows the collegium has not been provided in the Consution.
                  Reply
                  1. R
                    Ramakrishnan Kinattukara
                    Nov 19, 2016 at 7:09 am
                    How if kith and kin of politicians are already embedded in the collegium ?
                    Reply
                    1. R
                      Ramakrishnan Kinattukara
                      Nov 19, 2016 at 7:07 am
                      What will happen when the Supreme Court which is to protect the Consution insists on an extra Consutional mechanism like the Collegium whose transparency has been questioned even by its members.
                      Reply
                      1. L
                        L.P.Kulkarni
                        Nov 19, 2016 at 4:42 am
                        How much money has been ped to Collegium? Why CJI is forcing the government even though the reasons for rejection of 43 judges recommended must have been given .It appears collegium is filled up with corrupt judges except one judge who is very straight forward in expressing his opinion. Since the scrutiny is done by highly qualified officials of Central Government, I do not see why SC is interfering in day to day activities of the Government. One thing is Parliamentary is supreme and they make the laws which SC should abide and that is why they are called Law Makers in each and every Democratic Country.
                        Reply
                        1. A
                          Ashok Mazumdar
                          Nov 19, 2016 at 6:00 am
                          Arun Jaitley, Amit Shah and Narendra Modi wanted their Own Friends to be Judges in Various Courts. So that no criminal cases were filed/prosecuted against their Own Gujarati Sena.
                          Reply
                          1. T
                            Thennavan Ndn
                            Nov 19, 2016 at 3:53 am
                            SC is below parliament. Parliament is supreme
                            Reply
                            1. R
                              rahul
                              Nov 19, 2016 at 4:48 pm
                              This Mr. sawan waxes eloquent on rights and duties otherwise. Now, suddenly, he has run out of justifications, and out comes the "deal with it". Mr, it is being dealt with...and you will be sure to howl and cry the the results come in...
                              Reply
                              1. R
                                rajan luthra
                                Nov 19, 2016 at 12:51 am
                                Keep it up the Indian judiciary. No other pillar of democracy is more credible than our judiciary. Yet it must bring transparency in its working so that the executive doesn't get the opportunity to clip its wings. Executive is constantly pursuing the game of oneupmanship which is dangerous for the public at large. Attempts are being made to stifle the press too. So remain alert for the good of the country.
                                Reply
                                1. S
                                  Santanu Roy
                                  Nov 19, 2016 at 2:17 am
                                  Well done My Lord
                                  Reply
                                  1. s
                                    s. k.
                                    Nov 19, 2016 at 6:35 am
                                    Should there not be accountability and transparency in the judicial appointments? lt;br/gt;Should there be absolute power with the judiciary in the judicial appointments?lt;br/gt;There is an old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.lt;br/gt;This may become more true in the absence of accountability and transparency.lt;br/gt;Is the judiciary perfect and the sole repository of the w wisdom on this earth in the matters of appointments? The judiciary always requires, rightly so, that there should be transparency and accountability in matters of public appointments payable out of tax payers money. Judiciary should start the Charity from its own House and voluntarily provide transparency accountability at least in its administrative functioning of appointments without taking biased undue advantage of its judicial powers in its own cause. This is against the principles of Natural Justice which are applicable to the judiciary as well.
                                    Reply
                                    1. S
                                      SCC
                                      Nov 20, 2016 at 2:30 am
                                      The government should make public the reasons why it did not accept the recommended judges. People can thereafter decide if they want their cases to be listed in courts where such judge's are presiding.
                                      Reply
                                      1. S
                                        sethu
                                        Nov 20, 2016 at 4:01 am
                                        Must go and raid the Judiciary people and put them in place
                                        Reply
                                        1. S
                                          Sawan
                                          Nov 19, 2016 at 9:36 am
                                          So? Deal with it and appoint the judges.
                                          Reply
                                          1. S
                                            Sawan
                                            Nov 19, 2016 at 9:41 am
                                            That is the problem. What you consider as corruption may be your ploy to take control over it. It is for such an eventuality that our Consution that the Judiciary remains insulated from a Legislative take over when "a government has 2/3rd majority in both houses".
                                            Reply
                                            1. Load More Comments