The Supreme Court Collegium faced challenges in judicial appointments, with its reiterated recommendation of Saurabh Kirpal, an openly gay advocate, for elevation to the Delhi High Court stalled by the government. Similarly, the recommendation of advocate R. John Sathyan for a judgeship in the Madras High Court has not progressed. These instances highlight ongoing friction between the judiciary and the government over appointments.
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who is entering his final working week on Monday, led a Supreme Court Collegium that worked diligently to address judicial vacancies, but it left several notable gaps.
During its two-year tenure, the Chandrachud Collegium supported online free speech and advocated for dignity based on sexual orientation and integrity in judicial appointments.
Read Also: “No Constitutional Requirement for Reservation in Judicial Appointments”: MP HC
However, it did not recommend a single woman for the Supreme Court Bench, despite Chief Justice Chandrachud’s commitment to diversifying the court.
The Collegium’s recommendation to elevate Saurabh Kirpal, an openly gay advocate, to the Delhi High Court has been stalled by the government. Other recommendations, including R. John Sathyan for the Madras High Court and Amitesh Banerjee and Sakya Sen for the Calcutta High Court, have also not progressed.
Additionally, the Collegium had to withdraw its September 2022 recommendation to transfer Dr. S. Muralidhar, Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, to the Madras High Court, as Justice Muralidhar retired in August 2023.
A significant delay by the government in approving the Collegium’s recommendation for Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi as Jharkhand Chief Justice resulted in him having only a 15-day tenure, as he was cleared on July 3, 2024, and retired on July 19, 2024.
There was also a hold-up in the government’s approval of the Collegium’s reiterated recommendation to transfer Acting Chief Justice T. Raja of the Madras High Court to Rajasthan, leading to his eventual retirement from the Madras High Court.
Furthermore, the government prioritized Justice Victoria Gowri for a judgeship in the Madras High Court over Mr. Sathyan, despite the Collegium’s explicit directive that Sathyan’s name should be processed first to maintain his seniority. Justice Gowri has since been appointed as a Permanent Judge of the High Court.
A Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who was the second-ranking judge in the Supreme Court and a member of the Chandrachud Collegium at the time, previously challenged the government on delays and “selective” appointments and transfers of High Court judges.
The Bench accused the government of meddling with judicial seniority and even cautioned that the Collegium might respond in ways that could lead to “embarrassing” situations. Just days before his retirement, the matter was notably absent from Justice Kaul’s list, prompting him to remark openly in court, “Some things are best left unsaid.”
In September of this year, the issue of delayed judicial appointments briefly resurfaced in open court, with Chief Justice Chandrachud addressing Attorney General R. Venkataramani.
The Chief Justice asserted that the Collegium was not a “search committee” subject to the government’s discretion regarding its recommendations. He requested the Attorney General to provide a tabulated record of every pending Collegium recommendation, detailing why each one remained stalled and where it was held up within the government. He emphasized that the intent was not to “unearth skeletons in the cupboard but to move forward so that the business of governance proceeds.”
According to the Supreme Court website, the case is “tentatively may be listed on November 22, 2024,” which is notably after Chief Justice Chandrachud’s retirement on November 10.