Supreme Court Issues Warning Over Selective Judges Appointments
Supreme Court Issues Warning Over Selective Judges Appointments, Citing Delays and Unsettled Dynamics
In a stern rebuke to the government’s handling of judicial appointments, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the selective nature of decisions in appointing and transferring judges, emphasizing that such actions send a detrimental signal. As of November 1, a staggering 332 high court judge positions remained vacant across the nation’s 25 high courts, amplifying the urgency of timely appointments against a total strength of 1,114.
The court, led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, expressed its displeasure at the government’s approach, cautioning against a “pick and choose” strategy that undermines the integrity of the judiciary. Notably, the bench questioned the government’s transfer orders, highlighting the omission of transfers for six judges, including four from the Gujarat high court.
The government’s attorney general, R Venkataramani, defended the progress in processing the collegium’s recommendations but faced a sharp response from the bench. The court firmly stated that the delay in implementing six pending transfers, particularly the omission of four judges from Gujarat, is unacceptable. Warning of potential consequences, including withdrawal of judicial work, the court conveyed its readiness to take decisive action if transfers are further delayed.
The Supreme Court of India has once again taken a “pick and choose” approach to criticism of the central government in appealing to judges
The bench also expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s segregation of names proposed by the collegium for appointment as judges in the Punjab & Haryana high court. Notably, the government cleared only three out of five names, impacting the seniority of two Sikh candidates. The court criticized this “pick and choose” approach, questioning the government’s rationale and its potential impact on the willingness of individuals to accept judicial appointments.
In an effort to address these issues, the court adjourned a contempt plea filed by the Advocate Association, Bengaluru, until December 5. The order highlighted that six transfers are still pending, and numerous recommended appointments have faced delays. The court reiterated its commitment to monitoring these matters, emphasizing that its approach is not antagonistic but necessary for the proper functioning of the judicial system.
Senior counsel Dushyant Dave underscored the disparities in the government’s speed of approving Supreme Court appointments compared to the prolonged delays in high court recommendations. The court concurred, acknowledging that selective appointments fuel contentions and hinder the judiciary’s efficiency.
The recent elevation of three high court chief justices to the Supreme Court on November 8 served as a reminder of the need for swift action. However, the court’s decision on September 26 to monitor the government’s responsiveness to collegium recommendations reflects ongoing concerns about delays in the appointment and transfer of judges.
As the judiciary and the executive continue their longstanding standoff on the timeline for judicial appointments, the Supreme Court remains resolute in its commitment to ensuring a transparent and efficient process, free from selective interference.
