Judiciary-Executive showdown in Supreme Court over judges’ appointment

Judiciary-Executive showdown in Supreme Court over judges’ appointment
  • 3
    Shares

New Delhi: The ongoing turf-war between the judiciary and the executive over the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary Friday witnessed an open showdown in the Supreme Court with the Centre taking the Collegium head on for recommending few names to fill up huge vacancies in the high courts.
The apex court also hit out at the Centre for keeping the names recommended by the Collegium pending. “Tell us, how many names (recommended by the Collegium) are pending with you,” a bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta asked Attorney General (AG) K KVenugopal.
When the AG said “I will have to find out”, the bench retorted “when it comes to the government, you say ‘we will find out’”.
The strong remarks by the bench came after Venugopal said though the court was dealing with a matter relating to the vacancy of judges in the high courts of Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura, the fact was that the Collegium has been recommending only three names for high courts where the vacancy was for 40 judges.
“The Collegium will have to see the broad picture and recommend more names,” the AG said, adding, “some high courts have 40 vacancies and recommendation of the Collegium is only for three. And the government is being told that we are tardy in filing up the vacancy”.
“If there is no Collegium recommendation, nothing can be done,” Venugopal said.
The bench then reminded the government that they have to make the appointments.
The Collegium had on April 19 recommended to the Centre for appointing of Justice M Yaqoob Mir and Justice RamalingamSudhakar as the chief justices of the Meghalaya High Court and Manipur High Court respectively, which have not yet been cleared.
During the hearing, Venugopal said the issues related to Justice Sudhakar and Justice Yaqoob Mir would be dealt with and orders would be issued “shortly”.
“What shortly? ‘Shortly’ could be three months,” the bench reacted.
On April 17, while hearing a petition filed by a man seeking transfer of his case from Manipur High Court to Gauhati High Court, the apex court had noted that the situation in the high courts in North-East states like Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura was “critical” due to the vacancy of judges there.
It had noted that Manipur High Court had only two judges against a sanctioned strength of seven, Meghalaya High Court had one judge against the sanctioned strength of four, while Tripura High Court had two judges against sanctioned strength of four.
The top court’s remarks assume significance as the Centre, after almost three months of Collegium’s recommendation, returned for reconsideration the file of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation as an apex court judge.
The AG during his arguments also referred to the Collegium resolution of March 6 relating to the appointment of Justice SongkhupchungSerto, an additional judge of Manipur High Court who was functioning on transfer in the Gauhati High Court, as a permanent judge.
In this resolution, the Collegium had recommended that Justice Serto be appointed as a permanent judge of the Manipur High Court and would continue to function in Gauhati High Court.
Venugopal referred to the resolution and said it was “very strange” that Justice Serto should continue to function from the Gauhati High Court.