Premium
This is an archive article published on April 16, 2021

Set a timeline for reply to Collegium recommendations on filling up vacant judges’ posts: Supreme Court to Centre

The government, meanwhile, assured the Court that it will take a decision within the next three months on ten names still pending with it after being recommended by the Collegium for appointment as High Court judges.

According to the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges, the government has to do a background check on the names received from the High Court and then forward them to the Supreme Court.According to the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges, the government has to do a background check on the names received from the High Court and then forward them to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Thursday told the Centre that it must set itself a timeline to respond to recommendations made by the Collegium to fill up vacancies in posts of judges.

It said the government must let the Court know about the timeline at the next date of hearing.

The government, meanwhile, assured the Court that it will take a decision within the next three months on ten names still pending with it after being recommended by the Collegium for appointment as High Court judges.

The ten pending recommendations include those for the High Courts of Calcutta, Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir.

“The response on the ten names, a decision will be taken within three months,” Attorney General K K Venugopal told the bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices S K Kaul and Surya Kant when he was asked “What is the position of Collegium recommendations pending with the Centre?”.

The bench recorded this in its order: “Mr K K Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India appearing for the Union of India, states that the Government will take a decision regarding ten names sent to it vide letters dated 25.07.2019, 17.10.2019 and 18.08.2020 which are pending from more than six months, within a period of three months and communicate the same to this Court accordingly.”

The CJI told Venugopal: “Mr Attorney General, I think this case can be brought to a conclusion if the Centre tells us the timeline which will be adhered to in each stage of judges’ appointment.”

Story continues below this ad

The AG responded that a timeline has to be fixed for the High Courts to make recommendations.

The bench pointed to the need for a timeline for the Centre as well as the High Courts.

“We need to know the timeline by the Centre to respond to Supreme Court Collegium recommendations, and the other timeline is with respect to High Courts,” Justice Kaul said. “Please intimate the timeline on the next date of hearing,” he told the AG – the order did not specify the next date of hearing.

The CJI said: “We are not reviewing any appointments or judicial appointments. We just want to know the timeline in which the government and judiciary will proceed with respect to judges’ appointment.”

Story continues below this ad

The issue of judicial vacancies came up while the Supreme Court was hearing a petition related to a strike by lawyers in Odisha.

Hearing the plea on March 25, the Supreme Court had flagged the question of 55 recommendations – 45 recommended by High Court Collegiums and 10 cleared by the Supreme Court Collegium — pending with the government, and sought a statement from the Attorney General on their status.

Following this, the Ministry of Law and Justice forwarded the 45 names received from High Courts – these were pending with it for inputs from the Intelligence Bureau and background checks – to the Supreme Court Collegium which will now scrutinise and take a call on their suitability.

According to the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges, the government has to do a background check on the names received from the High Court and then forward them to the Supreme Court.

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement