SC Collegium recommends 3 advocates as judges of Bombay HC, IB had flagged one

The bench added IB has, however, flagged that Pooniwalla “had earlier worked under an advocate. It is reported that the said advocate has written an article in a publication in 2020 expressing concerns over the alleged lack of freedom of speech/expression in the country in the last 5-6 years”.

However, the Collegium opined, “The views which have been expressed by a former senior of Pooniwalla have no bearing on his own competence, ability or credentials for appointment as a Judge of the High Court of Bombay.”

It added that Pooniwalla “and his former senior practise on the Original side of the High Court of Bombay”. “Junior counsel associated with the chamber of a senior on the Original side are not engaged in a relationship of employer-employee with their senior. While juniors are associated with the chamber, they are free to do their own work and for all the intents and purposes, are entitled to independent legal practice,” it said.

The May 2 Collegium resolution added, “No adverse comments reflecting on the suitability of the candidate for elevation have been made in the file”. “The candidate has extensive practice at the Bar and is specialised in commercial law. The candidate professes Parsi Zoroastrianism and belongs to a minority community. Keeping in mind the above aspects and on an overall consideration of the proposal for his elevation, the Collegium is of the considered opinion that… Pooniwalla is suitable for appointment as a Judge of the High Court of Bombay,” it also said.

The Collegium also recommended that Advocates Shailesh Pramod Brahme and Jitendra Shantilal Jain too be appointed as judges of Bombay HC.

On Advocate Jain, the resolution said, “Enquiries have been made by a member of the Collegium conversant with the affairs of the High Court of Bombay on the issue which has been flagged by the Intelligence Bureau pertaining to his work in the chamber of a senior on the taxation side about 20 years ago. Enquiries have indicated that while it is correct that the candidate had ceased working in the chamber of that senior, he subsequently joined the chamber of a noted senior counsel at the Bar. The fact of the candidate having left the chamber of a senior earlier has no bearing on his ability, competence or integrity”.

The Collegium also stated Brahme is a competent lawyer with around 30 years of practice in civil, criminal, constitutional, and service law cases, and nothing adverse had been placed by the Department of Justice in his file.

The Collegium also recommended that Justice Robin Phukan, who is an Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court, be appointed as the permanent Judge of the HC.

As per the Collegium resolution, the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Dipankar Datta, had made the recommendation for the elevation of these three lawyers on September 26 last year. Nearly seven months after, on April 26, the file concerning these recommendations was forwarded by the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court. The SC Collegium noted the chief ministers and the governors of the States of Maharashtra and Goa have concurred with the recommendations.

The Bombay HC is functioning with 65 judges, 42 permanent judges, and 23 additional judges. However, the sanctioned strength of the court, which is the second largest in the country after the Allahabad High Court, is 94.

The Supreme Court Collegium on April 19 had passed a resolution recommending Justice Ramesh D Dhanuka as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court consequent to the appointment of Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala, Acting Chief Justice of Bombay HC, as Chief Justice of Madras High Court. However, the Central government is yet to clear the appointments of Justices Gangapurwala and Dhanuka.