Segregation of judges’ names troublesome, says Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concern over the segregation of names recommended by the Collegium for appointment as judges as it affects the seniority and disincentivises the meritorious candidates to join the bench.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Manoj Misra said it is troublesome when the appointment process is split between some of the names recommended for judgeship by apex court Collegium being appointed and some not.

The Centre, for its part, asked the court to give it two weeks to decide on pending appointment and transfer of judges in high courts.

Hearing pleas related to delay in the appointment of judges, the bench noted that five names reiterated by Collegium, five fresh names recommended for judgeship and the transfer of 11 high court judges are pending with the Centre.

“We appreciate what has been done (recent notifications) but more push is necessary,” the bench said.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing a petitioner, said the government’s counsel tells the court, that do not interfere in transfers at all and in transfer they pick and choose.

“That is troublesome and the other issue troublesome is, where the appointment process is split between some being appointed and some not,” the bench said.

Dave raised the issue of the appointment of R John Sathyam as a judge of a high court, which has not been cleared by the Centre so far. In January this year, the Supreme Court Collegium reiterated its February 16, 2022 recommendation for appointing Sathyam as a judge of the Madras High Court, brushing aside the objections of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to his social media posts including the one critical of PM Modi.

The bench asked the Centre’s counsel, “Suppose there are four names. You notify four and hold back on one, what about that? You have said nothing on that?”

Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh said, “On segregation, I understand that the impact is ultimately on seniority”.

The court fixed the matter for further hearing on November 7.