Today(20th Sept), The Supreme Court directed the Central government to submit a list of reiterated judgeship names and reasons for delays in processing. This occurred during hearings on petitions, including one from the Jharkhand government regarding Justice MS Ramachandra Rao’s appointment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(20th Sept), the Supreme Court of India issued a firm directive to the Central government, asking it to submit a detailed list of names reiterated by the Collegium for judgeship appointments. The Court also sought a comprehensive explanation for the delays in processing these names, questioning why they hadn’t been approved and at what stage they were pending.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was hearing two significant petitions related to this issue. The first petition, filed by the Jharkhand government, called for contempt action against the Centre for its failure to clear the recommendation of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao’s appointment as Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. This recommendation was made by the Collegium on July 11, but the Centre has yet to act on it.
The second petition, brought by Advocate Harsh Vibhore Singal, sought a fixed timeline for the Union government to process and approve the Collegium’s recommendations. Delays, Singal argued, were undermining the judicial process and needed to be curtailed with legally mandated deadlines.
As the hearing began, Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani informed the court-
“I would like to raise a point about the judges’ appointment matter. I’m feeling a bit unwell…”
despite his condition, the Court pressed forward, emphasizing the urgency of the situation.
Singal expressed his frustration with the ongoing delays, stating-
“I don’t understand what the Centre gains by seeking adjournments in this matter. The issue isn’t with the judges’ appointment process, but…”
His statement highlighted the perception that the central government’s continual requests for postponement were stalling crucial judicial appointments.
When the case resumed, the Court seemed inclined to grant an adjournment, but also noted that certain appointments were already in the pipeline. At this moment,
Advocate Prashant Bhushan interjected, bringing up another high-profile case-
“There are cases like Saurabh Kirpal’s where names remain unapproved, and many instances where the Centre has delayed Collegium recommendations for years.”
This prompted CJI Chandrachud to directly address the Attorney General, saying-
“Please provide a list of reiterated names, the reasons for their pending status, and the levels at which they are pending.”
The Court’s focus was clearly on understanding the specific reasons for the delays and the levels within the government where the recommendations were stalling.
Representing the Jharkhand government, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal added to the discussion, referencing another case of delay:
“Justice Sarangi’s name, recommended as Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court in December 2023, was only cleared in July 2024, preventing him from joining for six months.”
This delay resulted in Justice Sarangi serving as Chief Justice for only 15 days before his retirement, a situation that Sibal argued undermined the effectiveness of the judiciary.
In response, AG Venkataramani explained-
“There are multiple reasons why these names are pending, and we have no hesitation in stating that… it’s easy to come to court and say all this…”
His statement indicated that the Central government had its own justifications for the delays, although specifics were not immediately provided.
However, Senior Advocate Sibal clarified that his concerns were not directed at the individual but at the systemic issue, stating-
“Please don’t take this personally; I am talking about the institutions.”
The AG responded-
“I am also concerned about the institution,”
signaling that the government shared the judiciary’s concerns about the delays, but there were underlying issues contributing to the problem.
The case was eventually adjourned, but not before the Court reiterated its demand for a detailed explanation from the Centre on why the Collegium’s recommendations were pending.
The petition filed by the Jharkhand government had earlier highlighted the recurring delays in the Collegium’s recommendations. It pointed out the significant delay in clearing the recommendation for Justice BR Sarangi’s appointment as Chief Justice of Jharkhand. The Collegium had put forward his name on December 27, 2023, but the Centre did not clear the appointment until July 3, 2024. By then, Justice Sarangi had only 15 days left before his retirement on July 19, a delay that the Jharkhand government argued had hindered the administration of justice.
According to the plea, the Collegium acted swiftly to recommend appointments, but the Centre’s inaction had compromised judicial independence. The petition contended that this delay violated Supreme Court rulings in the Second and Third Judges cases, and posed a direct challenge to the independence of the judiciary.
In a pointed statement, the Court emphasized that-
“The Supreme Court Collegium is not a search committee for judges whose recommendations can be delayed.”
The Bench then directed AG Venkataramani to provide a full list of the reiterated names and explain-
“why they are pending and at what level.”
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, during the hearing, also raised concerns about senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, who has yet to be appointed as a high court judge despite his name being reiterated by the Collegium.
In his concluding remarks, the AG acknowledged that multiple reasons existed for the delays, but emphasized-
“It is very easy to come to court and make these claims.”
The hearing was adjourned, with the expectation that the government would soon provide the required information on the pending appointments.
