In a significant development in the Indian judiciary, the Centre has approved the appointment of senior advocate U K Nair as a judge of the Gauhati High Court. This decision comes after the High Court had deferred the swearing-in ceremony of another senior advocate, Kaushik Goswami, for the same position. The official gazette notification dated November 9 stated,
“In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 224 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri N Unni Krishnan Nair to be an Additional Judge of the Gauhati High Court, for a period of two years with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.”
The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, had recommended both Nair and Goswami for the positions on October 17. However, the government initially only cleared Goswami’s name, leading to concerns over the order of seniority, as Nair is six years older than Goswami. A source familiar with the developments stated,
“It would have sent a wrong message to the Bar. Nair is senior and his family has lived in Assam for two generations now.”
The Supreme Court has previously expressed concerns over the government’s “selective picking” of names from those recommended by its Collegium for elevation as High Court judges. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had observed,
“This selective business… this pick-and-choose must stop,”
referring to recent appointments to the Punjab and Haryana HC where the government cleared only three out of five advocates recommended.
In another related development, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha, ordered the expunction of disparaging remarks made by the Gauhati High Court against a Special NIA Court Judge, who is currently a sitting judge of the High Court. The Court stated,
“we are of the opinion that the adverse observations against the petitioner as contained in paragraphs 130, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, and 233 and in any other relevant portion of the order are treated as expunged and shall not be held against the petitioner in any manner.”
The sitting judge had approached the Supreme Court seeking the removal of remarks from a High Court judgment that criticized his ruling in an NIA case when he was a special judge. The remarks included terms such as ‘deep-rooted bias in favor of the prosecution’ and ‘committing an act of rank judicial impropriety.’ The plea argued that these remarks were unnecessary and had adversely affected the judge’s reputation and peace of mind.
These two instances reflect the ongoing dynamics and challenges within the Indian judicial system, highlighting the importance of maintaining the integrity and reputation of judicial officers and the process of their appointment.