The Supreme Court on Monday took strong exception to the Union Law Minister's statement on the Collegium system for the appointment of judges, asking if the recommendations are being withheld since the Union government's 2014 law on setting up the National Judicial Appointment Commission could not pass the muster.
The top court clarified once the recommendation are reiterated, the names have to be cleared, and that is the end of the matter, as per the law as it stands on the day.
During the hearing on a contempt petition filed by Advocates Association Bengaluru, senior advocate Vikas Singh brought to the notice of the court Law Minister Kiren Rijiju's interview with a TV channel, wherein he had said, "Never say that the government is sitting on the files. Don't send the files to the government then, you appoint yourself, you run the show".
"We have expressed our anguish. It appears that the government is not happy that the NJAC has not passed muster. Can that be the reason to not clear the names," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka asked Attorney General R Venkataramani.
"When someone high enough says that it should not have happened. We have ignored all press reports, but this has come from somebody high enough also," the bench told the AG.
The bench said the whole process for the appointment of judges already takes time.
"The Intelligence Bureau inputs are taken. Your input is taken. Supreme Court Collegium considers your inputs and sends the name. Once it is reiterated, that is the end of the matter, as the law stands now," the bench told the AG.
The court told the law officers to convey the "sentiments of the bench" to the government and ensure that the law of the land is followed.
The court fixed the matter for further hearing on December 8.
Also Read: Tweak or discard collegium system
The AG submitted that he had discussions with the Secretaries after the last order of the Supreme Court and he would endeavor to resolve the deadlock.
On November 11, the court expressed its strong displeasure over the delay in the appointment of judges, saying unless the bench is adorned by competent lawyers, very concept of 'Rule of Law' and 'Justice' suffers.
"Once the government has expressed its reservation and that has been dealt with by the Collegium, post second reiteration, only the appointment has to take place. Thus, keeping the names pending is something not acceptable," the bench had said.
Referring to instances where the government did not appoint the persons despite a second reiteration by the Collegium, the bench had said, "We find the method of keeping the names on hold whether duly recommended or reiterated is becoming some sort of a device to compel these persons to withdraw their names as has happened."
The court had then sought an explanation from the Union Justice secretary and current Additional Secretary (Administration and Appointment) over the delay in the appointment of judges to the High Courts and the top court.