THE SUPREME Court Tuesday reiterated its displeasure over the government “selectively picking” names from those recommended by its Collegium for elevation as High Court judges and said that a lawyer’s political affiliations should not be a reason to disqualify them from being appointed as judges unless there is a “deep-rooted political aspect that affects their judicial work”. A two-judge bench presided by Justice S K Kaul also told Attorney General R Venkataramani to ask the government to notify transfers recommended by it, saying that failure to do so “creates an anomaly in the system”. The bench, also comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhula, was hearing a petition filed by the Advocates Association, Bengaluru and another by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) seeking contempt of court proceedings against the Centre for alleged delay in deciding on the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium in the matter of appointment and transfer of judges. “This selective business.This pick-and-choose must stop,” Justice Kaul said while referring to some recent appointments to the Punjab and Haryana HC where the government cleared only three names out of a total of five advocates recommended for elevation by the SC Collegium. Referring to the pendency of transfer proposals, the court said that “once a judge has been appointed, where they perform their judicial function is a matter of no concern to the government”. Cautioning the government, he said, “Tomorrow, the collegium can collectively advise to not assign judicial work to a particular bench. Don’t make us take this step, but it is not beyond our powers to do it. This is not an off-hand remark, but something I have discussed with the collegium.” Pointing out lawyers should not be shut out from being considered for judgeship solely based on their political preferences, the court said, “you have a system of governance where different parties govern different states” and “some lawyers whose names are recommended, even if they are not politically very active. may have some connections with the government or the ruling dispensation” but the collegium still clears it. Justice Kaul said it is obvious that if someone is holding a law officer post, they have some connection with the ruling dispensation. “But they should not have a deep-rooted political aspect that affects their judicial work,” he said. “You have to balance these factors. Forty per cent of states are governed by opposition parties. There will therefore be people holding law officer positions or otherwise who have some association,” Justice Kaul said.
