The Centre Today (Sept 19) told the Supreme Court that it will be providing some details next week concerning the collegium’s recommendations on the appointment of chief justices in several high courts in the country. The submissions to this effect were made by Attorney General R Venkataramani before a bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud while seeking an adjournment of the hearing on a PIL which is listed for hearing on Friday.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Centre informed the Supreme Court that it would provide further details next week regarding the collegium’s recommendations on appointing Chief Justices in various high courts across India.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani made these submissions before a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, while requesting a postponement of the hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) scheduled for Friday.
“I will be providing some details about the collegium’s recommendations. Please list the plea (which is listed on Friday) after a week,”
-said the Attorney General to the bench, which also included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
In response, the bench stated that the request for adjournment could be made on Friday itself since the matter was already scheduled for discussion.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Chandrachud also brought to the Attorney General’s attention that the Jharkhand government had filed a contempt petition against the Centre for not appointing a Chief Justice to the state’s High Court.
The Hemant Soren-led Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) government had approached the Supreme Court over the Centre’s delay in approving the collegium’s recommendation to appoint Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.
“I am not aware,”
-replied the Attorney General, in response to the information provided by the CJI.
Earlier, on September 13, the Attorney General had informed the bench that the central government had received some “sensitive material” that contributed to the delay in implementing the Supreme Court collegium’s recommendations regarding the appointment of Chief Justices in high courts.
The Attorney General emphasized that certain inputs had been received from the Union government, which were “sensitive in nature,” and revealing these details publicly would not be in the “interest of the institution” or the judges involved.
“I would like to place the inputs and my suggestions in a sealed cover for perusal by the judges,”
-Venkataramani had told the bench.
The PIL, filed by advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal, has been scheduled for hearing on September 20. Singhal’s plea seeks a directive from the court to establish a time frame for the Centre to notify the appointments of judges recommended by the Supreme Court collegium.
The PIL also aims to address the issue of the so-called “zone of twilight,” where no specific timeframe exists for notifying the collegium’s recommendations on the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.
The plea argues that in the absence of a fixed period,
“the government arbitrarily delays notifying appointments, thereby trampling upon judicial independence, imperilling the constitutional and democratic order and disparaging the majesty and sagacity of the court.”
It further suggests that if a recommendation is neither objected to nor notified within such a fixed timeframe, the appointment of that judge should automatically be considered as approved and notified.
The three-member collegium, led by the Chief Justice of India, recommended on July 11 the names of individuals for appointment as Chief Justices in seven high courts: Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, and Meghalaya. These recommendations are currently pending the Centre’s approval.
However, on July 17, the Supreme Court collegium made adjustments to its previous July 11 resolution concerning the appointment of Chief Justices in the high courts of Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
Speculation suggests that the collegium’s decision to revise its earlier resolution followed after the Centre shared crucial information with the collegium regarding these appointments.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
