Collegium not search panel, give report on status of pending names, SC tells Govt

the Collegium and what is the difficulty in making those appointments,” Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud told Venkataramani.

“The Collegium is not a search committee. It has a certain status in terms of the constitutional fabric. In the case of a search committee, where the search committee makes a recommendation…there is absolute discretion whether to accept or not accept the recommendation… So you come back to us and tell us what is the status of those (names) which are pending,” the CJI said.

“Ultimately, Mr Attorney General, the idea is not to unearth skeletons in the cupboard but to move forward so that the business of governance proceeds. That’s all,” he said.

“That’s well understood,” Venkataramani told the three-Judge Bench which included Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The Bench was hearing a PIL which sought a “fixed time limit” for the Centre to notify the appointment of Judges recommended by the Collegium. It was also hearing a contempt plea filed by the Jharkhand government against the Centre, alleging delay in clearing the Collegium’s recommendation to transfer Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court.

On Thursday, the AG had urged the Bench to adjourn the matter by a week, saying he would be able to “come back with something” on the status of the recommendations made by the SC Collegium on July 11 this year for appointment of Chief Justices of seven High Courts.

The CJI had told him that he should make the request on Friday. Accordingly, the AG reiterated his request on Friday, and the Bench agreed.

“Some appointments are in the pipeline, we expect those appointments to come shortly,” the CJI said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan intervened and referred to an earlier petition filed on the issue, saying many recommendations were yet to be cleared.

The Bench then decided to seek a “chart” on the status of the recommendations.

Agreeing to this, the AG said: “There is no difficulty in that. But every such case brings in its own such element… some dispute here… somebody says why is it not done… so I don’t know to what extent the Court may enter into the deliberations on that… It’s easy for our learned friend to come and say why it’s not being done, but your lordships know better.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the Jharkhand government, said although the Collegium had recommended the appointment of Justice B R Sarangi as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand HC, he got only one month in office due to the delay in clearing his name.

While agreeing to provide the details sought, the AG said he would also file objections to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the issue.

This triggered a war of words, with Sibal expressing his displeasure. “It is not for the AG to object to it,” Sibal said.

“If Mr Kapil Sibal can take charge of all appointments, I have no difficulty with it. Don’t say it is not for the AG… (on) contempt, we will answer,” the AG responded.

“Don’t make it personal. We are talking about institutions,” said Sibal.

“Of course, we are talking about institutions. Talking about institutions is not anybody’s private prerogative,” the AG said.

“Seems to be yours,” Sibal retorted.