Advocates’ Association Bengaluru has raised concern over the absence of OBC and BCM-A lawyers in recent Karnataka High Court judge recommendations from the Bar quota. The Association called the situation “gross under-representation” and urged the High Court Collegium to ensure fair and constitutional representation.
Jharkhand: The Jharkhand High Court Advocates Association is protesting against the appointment of lawyers from outside the state as judges of the Jharkhand High Court.Since March 6, the lawyers have been boycotting the courts of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, and Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay. These three judges are part of the High Court Collegium responsible for recommending names for the appointment of judges.
The Supreme Court Collegium recommended appointing nine advocates as judges of the Bombay High Court and Justice Narendar G as Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. The recommendations followed evaluations of candidates’ merits, addressing current judicial vacancies, and ensuring representation from the Karnataka High Court among Chief Justices.
Today, On 10th September, The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the elevation of three judicial officers, initially proposed by the Madras High Court, to serve as judges in the Madras High Court. The elevation of these officers, including Augustine Devadoss Maria Clete, aims to increase minority representation and strengthen the judiciary in Tamil Nadu, addressing vacancies and enhancing efficiency.
Today, On 6th September, the Supreme Court ruled that limited judicial scrutiny of Collegium decisions is permitted to ensure proper consultation among members. The decision allows review of consultation process but not the suitability of candidates. The Court emphasized collective decision-making in judicial appointments and directed a reconsideration of two District Judges’ candidacies for elevation.
The Central Government has made nine additional judges of the Allahabad High Court permanent, following thorough evaluation, endorsed by the Chief Minister and Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The move, announced by Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, aims to strengthen the judiciary and improve the court’s efficiency amidst a growing caseload.
Today, On 5th August, The Central government approved a new one-year term for nine additional judges of the Calcutta High Court starting on August 31, 2024. This decision follows the Supreme Court Collegium’s choice to extend their terms instead of making them permanent judges. It highlights the complexity of judicial appointments in India and aims to ensure continuity while evaluating permanent appointments.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the Supreme Court collegium’s reasons for rejecting judgeship candidates should remain confidential, as disclosure could harm the candidates. The court emphasized that the High Court cannot challenge the Supreme Court’s decisions. The Division Bench dismissed an appeal, advising the petitioner to seek early hearing if his cases were being delayed.
The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on an individual seeking justifications for Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendations, emphasizing the Collegium’s autonomy. The petitioner’s plea was deemed a misuse of judicial resources, lacking genuine public interest. The decision raised concerns about judicial independence versus transparency in the Collegium system.