Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
The Supreme Court on Tuesday once again raised concern over the delay on the part of the Centre in acting on recommendations made by the Collegium related to the appointment and transfer of judges in the High Courts.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed a plea by Attorney General R Venkatramani for a week's time to get back to the court.
“I thought of saying a lot... since the AG is asking for only seven days I am holding myself, that is all... and won’t keep quiet for long (sic)," Justice Kaul said while fixing the matter for hearing every 10 days till the Court gets an assurance that things look positive from Centre.
Taking up a plea by the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, the bench said that about 70 names recommended for elevation as HC judges have been pending with the Centre since November 2022.
Of the total 80 names originally recommended, the Centre acted on 10. As regards the other 70, the bench pointed out there were 26 names related to the transfer of HC judges and one related to the appointment of Chief Justice.
The court said that it would continue to monitor the matter every 10 to 12 days.
"70 names (for the appointment of high court judges) are pending for a period of 10 months…..basic processing takes place for these 70 names. In high courts, 70 judges are not there, as some of them do not get appointed, on average, 50 per cent. If your view would be known then Collegium will take a call. The time frame fixed under the judgment was about four months, let us take five months (sic),” the bench said.
"I am flagging it so that you can take instructions, at least the high court recommendation, up to the end of April, must be with the Collegium (sic)," Justice Kaul told the AG.
In July this year, the Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, had recommended Delhi High Court judge Siddharth Mridul for appointment as Chief Justice of Manipur High Court. However, his appointment has not been notified by the government so far.
The court said nothing has happened in the past several months since it last heard the matter, and noted that "the appointment of Chief Justice is very sensitive matter".
Senior advocate Arvind Datar appeared for the petitioner's association. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervenor, raised the issue of withdrawal of consent by the candidates due to delay and segregation of names by the Centre.
The bench said there are nine such cases and told the AG that the only concern is that during the seven-month hiatus, lawyers lose interest and withdraw their names, "though we endeavour to get the best talent available in different courts”.
"We have endeavoured to push these things….now we want to monitor it closely (sic)," the bench said, fixing the matter for hearing on October 9.
Earlier this year, the court had warned the Centre that any delay in clearing the transfer of High Court judges recommended by its Collegium "may result in both administrative and judicial actions which may not be palatable".
"Don't make us take a stand which will be very uncomfortable (sic)," the bench told Venkataramani, who, appearing for the Centre, submitted that transfer would happen soon.
As on September 1, 2023, there are vacancies of 340 judges out of a sanctioned strength of 1114 judges in 25 High Courts across the country.