CJI Bhushan R. Gavai firmly told the Centre, “Don’t act selectively on collegium recommendations,” stressing that judicial appointments must be handled fairly, without splitting or delaying names, to protect the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai urged the Union government to avoid selectively acting on collegium recommendations, stressing that appointments and transfers should not be processed in instalments or by separating names.
A person familiar with the situation stated,
“CJI Gavai was emphatic that segregating names from a batch of recommendations not only disturbs the seniority of judges but also sends an improper message about the collegium’s authority and functioning,”
Also Read: CJI Gavai Warns Judges: ‘No Govt Jobs or Politics After Retirement!’
This source noted that some recommendations from CJI Gavai’s predecessors have remained unresolved due to the government’s practice of segregating them.
In a significant move, CJI Gavai led the collegium in recommending the elevation of three high court judges, Justices N.V. Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi, and A.S. Chandurkar to the Supreme Court. The collegium, which included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, and B.V. Nagarathna, saw the Union government promptly act, notifying the appointments on May 30 and allowing the Supreme Court to attain its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges.
The same meeting also put forth the appointment of five new chief justices: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva (Rajasthan), Justice Vibhu Bakhru (Karnataka), Justice Ashutosh Kumar (Gauhati), Justice Vipul M. Pancholi (Patna), and Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan (Jharkhand).
Additionally, four sitting chief justices were rotated among the Madras, Rajasthan, Tripura, Telangana, and Jharkhand high courts. The meeting proposed transferring 22 judges to various high courts based on administrative needs and personal requests, with the Delhi High Court receiving a proposed addition of six judges.
Also Read: CJI BR Gavai Calls Constitution a Living Document That Evolves With Changing Times
This reflects a commitment to enhancing transparency in judicial appointments and accountability. These actions follow the Supreme Court’s recent efforts toward openness, which include publishing collegium resolutions, judge profiles, and asset declarations on its official website a transparency initiative launched under former CJI Sanjiv Khanna in early May.
Another source indicated that all collegium files related to judge transfers and chief justice appointments, except for one delayed due to late consent, have been approved and may be formally notified within a week.
“All the files, except one where the consent of the judge concerned reached late and led to some administrative issue, have been cleared and are awaiting final notification by the government. They may happen within a week.”
While the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which guides the appointment and transfer of judges in constitutional courts, does not explicitly forbid segregation, the judiciary has consistently opposed this practice.
In 2014, then CJI R.M. Lodha wrote to then Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, objecting to the government’s unilateral decision to exclude former Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium from a list of four recommended judges for the Supreme Court. Subramanium later withdrew his nomination. More recently, between 2022 and 2023, a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul criticized this practice, stating that “selective appointments undermined the element of workable trust essential for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive.”
The bench cautioned that such actions “send a wrong signal.”
However, following Justice Kaul’s retirement in December 2023, the issue has not been scheduled for further hearing.
In 2014, the National Democratic Alliance government enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which aimed to create an alternative system for appointing judges to constitutional courts, proposing a greater role for the government in the process.
Also Read: CJI BR Gavai Pays Tribute to Dr BR Ambedkar at Gray’s Inn, London
However, in 2015, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional, ruling that it interfered with the independence of the judiciary.
Since the NJAC verdict, tensions between the judiciary and the executive have persisted, often surfacing around the MoP, the document that outlines the judicial appointment process.
Despite numerous discussions, a new MoP has not been established, leading to frequent deadlocks and delays in judicial appointments. The executive has expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in the collegium system, while the judiciary has resisted any perceived attempts to encroach upon its independence.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
