New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Friday told the Centre that the “Collegium is not a search committee” and there cannot be any discretion in accepting its reiterated recommendations.

“The Collegium is not a search committee. It has a certain status in the constitutional fabric. This is not a case of a search committee, where it makes a recommendation and there is an absolute discretion whether to accept or not,” a bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud told Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani, the highest law officer of the Centre.

The Bench, also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, asked AG Venkataramani to file a chart indicating the status of reiterated recommendations and the difficulty in notifying those names.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan said that a large number of reiterated recommendations are pending with the Centre and should be notified immediately. Mr Bhushan added that apart from the above issue, the Centre “sits for years” on initial recommendations forwarded by the Collegium.

“Mr Attorney General, please tell us which are the reiterated names but remain pending and why are they pending? Give us a tabulated chart, and we will deal with it,” the top court said.

Adjourning the hearing for next week, the Supreme Court said, “Let’s wait for a little while. Some of these appointments are in the pipeline. We are expecting that appointments (of Chief Justices of several HCs) should come very shortly.”

“Ultimately, Mr Attorney General, the idea is not to unearth skeletons in the cupboard but to move forward. The business of governance must proceed,” added the CJI Chandrachud-led Bench.

On Thursday, the Centre urged the top court to “push for another week” the hearing on a batch of pleas concerning the delay in the appointment or transfer of judges in the higher judiciary.

“If the batch of petitions could be pushed for another week or so, I will be in a position to come back with something. Let it not be taken up tomorrow,” submitted AG Venkataramani.

At this, CJI Chandrachud said, “It will be on board because the causelist is already out. You can mention it tomorrow because the other side is not here.”

Presently, the committee comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, commonly called the Collegium, sends the recommendation for the appointment of a judge to the top court as per the 1993 Second Judges Case.

The Collegium decides who will be appointed as a judge to the Supreme Court or a High Court. As per convention, the government is obliged to accept the Collegium’s recommendation if the decision has been reiterated. Commonly called “judges selecting judges”, in this system, judges are appointed and transferred only by judges.

In 2015, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the Centre’s idea of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the Collegium system.

Article 124(2) of the Constitution provides that “every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose.”

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it will be providing some details next week concerning the collegium’s recommendations on the appointment of chief justices in several high courts in the country.

The submissions to this effect were made by Attorney General R Venkataramani before a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud while seeking an adjournment of the hearing on a PIL which is listed for hearing on Friday.

“I will be providing some details about the collegium’s recommendations. Please list the plea (which is listed on Friday) after a week,” the top law officer told the bench which also comprised justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The bench said the submissions for the adjournment can be made on Friday itself as the matter is already on board.

Meanwhile, the CJI told the top law officer that the Jharkhand government has filed a contempt petition against the Centre for not appointing the Chief Justice in the high court in the state.

The Hemant Soren-led JMM government has moved the top court against the Centre for not clearing the recommendation made by the Collegium to appoint Justice M S Ramachandra Rao as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

“I am not aware,” the top law officer said.

Earlier, the attorney general on September 13 told the bench that the central government had received some “sensitive material” that had led to a delay in implementation of the apex court collegium’s recommendations on appointments of chief justices to high courts.

The top law officer said he received certain inputs from the Union government which are sensitive in nature and revealing them in the public domain would neither be in the interest of the institution nor of the judges involved.

“I would like to place the inputs and my suggestions in a sealed cover for perusal by the judges,” Venkatramani had told the bench.

The PIL filed by advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal was then posted for hearing on September 20.

Singhal has sought a direction that a time limit be fixed for the Centre to notify the appointment of judges recommended by the apex court collegium.

It has also sought a direction to plug the ‘zone of twilight’ of there being no time for notifying the collegium’s recommendations for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.

The plea said that in the absence of a fixed period, “the government arbitrarily delays notifying appointments thereby trampling upon judicial independence, imperilling the constitutional and democratic order and disparaging the majesty and sagacity of the court”.

The plea said if any name is not objected to or the appointments are not notified by the end of such a fixed period, then appointments of such judges must be taken as notified.

The three-member collegium headed by the CJI, on July 11, recommended to the Centre the names for the appointment of chief justices for seven high courts namely Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras and Meghalaya. The recommendations are pending approval with the Centre.

The Supreme Court collegium, on July 17, tweaked its July 11 resolution relating to the appointment of the chief justices for the high courts of Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

There were speculations that tweaking of the collegium’s July 11 resolution took place apparently after the Centre shared some crucial information with the collegium.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on Tuesday recommended the names of seven judicial officers for appointment as judges of the Patna and Madhya Pradesh High Courts.

The collegium, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sanjiv Khanna, named judicial officers Rudra Prakash Mishra and Ramesh Chand Malviya as judges of the Patna High Court.

“On May 8, 2023, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues recommended the elevation of the above judicial officers as Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Patna.

“The Chief Minister and the Governor of the State of Bihar have concurred with the recommendation. In order to ascertain the fitness and suitability of the above persons for elevation to the High Court, we have consulted Judges of the Supreme Court who are conversant with the affairs of the High Court of Judicature at Patna,” the collegium said.

For the purpose of assessing the merit and suitability of the candidates for elevation to the high court, the collegium scrutinised and evaluated the material placed on record including the observations made by the Department of Justice in the file as well as the complaints received against the candidates.

In another decision, the collegium recommended the names of judicial officers Rajendra Kumar Vani, Pramod Kumar Agrawal, Binod Kumar Dwivedi, Devnarayan Mishra and Gajendra Singh as judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

“On May 11, 2023 and August 9, 2023, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues made the above recommendation.

“The Chief Minister and the Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh have concurred with the recommendations. In order to ascertain the fitness and suitability of the above persons for elevation to the High Court, we have consulted our colleague conversant with the affairs of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,” the collegium said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud Friday asserted it was wrong to say that the Supreme Court collegium has no factual data to evaluate the candidates being considered for appointment as judges of the top court and high courts.

Delivering the Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture, the CJI said the collegium has prepared a broad platform where it has assessed top 50 judges of country for consideration as Supreme Court judges.

“Our aim is to lay down objective parameters for selection of judges for SC, HCs,” Justice Chandrachud said.

The CJI said his goal has been to institutionalise courts and move away from an ad hoc model of operation.

“Too often individuals come and lay down ideas only to be forgotten when they pass on the baton to the next person. Institutionalising courts enhances transparency and accountability,” he said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)