Our actions may not be palatable, do not force us: SC to Govt over delay on judges

It also sought to know the status of seven names recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court still pending with the Centre. It questioned the Attorney General who said “it’s happening”, but would not give a specific date. The bench later recorded that it will be done in a maximum of 5 days.

The judges made the remarks while  hearing a plea by the Advocates Association Bengaluru which sought contempt of court proceedings against the government over the delay in clearing names reiterated by the Collegium within timelines laid down by the court.

It also pushed back on criticism of its functioning: “We are used to it from different sides. And we are used to handling it this side. And be rest assured, it doesn’t, beyond a stage, bother us. It’s for different authorities to see what is appropriate and not appropriate.”

At the last hearing, the court had expressed “extreme concern” over 10 recommendations for transfer of High Court judges still pending with the government, and said “keeping it pending sends a very wrong signal that other factors are coming into play”.

On Friday, Justice Kaul told Venkataramani: “Something has been greatly troubling us. I mentioned it last time in the order. If transfer orders issued by judges are not implemented, what do you want us to do?… If we decide that somebody should be working in” a court “and you keep this pending, this is very, very serious to my mind. More serious than anything else.”

The Attorney General said he did not want to go into the details at this stage and urged the court to defer the hearing for a while to ascertain the progress.

Justice Kaul told him: “You will make us take some very, very difficult decisions… I can understand a new appointment… but transfer?… It’s a very, very serious issue. I said so, we will not allow third parties to clear names in this… Don’t make us take a stand which will be very uncomfortable.”

The bench then went on to record in its order: “We have put it to the AG as on the last date of hearing that there should be no question of transfer of judges from one court to the other pending with the government for such a long period of time. More so, as the government has little role in it. We put it to the AG that any delay in this may result in both administrative and judicial actions which may not be palatable.”

The Attorney General initially took the bench through the status of the pending recommendations made by the Collegium.

The bench then pointed out that there are seven names recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court pending with the Centre.

“Five are of December, 2 were sent recently, we are in February,” Justice Kaul said.

The Attorney General said the process is on and the warrants for appointment will be issued very soon.

When the bench sought to know within what time it will be done, Venkataramani said “it’s happening” and he didn’t want to give a specific date.

Justice Kaul said, “My next question is when will it happen.” “See, these are judicial proceedings. I am not sitting on the administrative side where I can say something and say okay. Therefore, I must understand,” he said.

Venkataramani reiterated that it will happen soon and that should be sufficient. The bench then said, “Attorney General, normally you are right. But when things have not been happening for years together…”

The Attorney General said, “That does not mean it is not done.”

The court recorded in the order that it will be done in a maximum of 5 days.

On the recommendations for transfer of High Court judges, the bench said, “Some of the transfers of Chief Justices are pending and one of them is demitting office in 19 days. You want to make him retire even without being appointed as Chief Justice?”.

Justice Kaul said, “First recommended for one court. Not done. Then recommended for another court where there is a vacancy, still not done… You will say the government takes time. Sometimes… 7-10 days. Sometimes it’s overnight. Sometimes it goes on. This is what creates issues of faith. Should not happen this way.”

Venkataramani said he is aware of it and necessary action will be taken.

When a counsel pointed out that the court was being “attacked” from outside, Justice Kaul remarked that it is used to handling it. Justice Oka said, “We are trying to resolve more important issues.”.

Stating that it will hear the matter again after a week, the bench hoped there will be some good news before that.