SC Collegium Decides To Lay Down Procedure For Selecting And Transferring Judges After Backlash on Justice Patel’s transfer

The Supreme Court collegium, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, has reportedly resolved to devise a procedure to streamline the selection and transfer of Judges.

“There have been several instances in the past when the government sat on earlier recommendations for appointment of persons as HC judges while accepting later recommendations.

This creates imbalance in seniority among HC judges in a seniority-driven hierarchy which decides who will enter the zone of consideration for being appointed as chief justices of HCs, and ultimately who will be eligible for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court,” a source was quoted as saying.

According to a TOI report, the decision comes in the wake of the widespread condemnation over the Justice Jayant M. Patel’s resignation earlier this week, allegedly to protest his non-elevation as the Chief Justice of any High Court despite his seniority. The decision has, therefore, been made with a view to eliminate arbitrariness from the process.

The resignation had invited strong reactions from the members of the legal community. The Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association has resolved to petition the Supreme Court, challenging the decision to transfer the Judge. It has further decided to “raise larger issues viz. seeking full disclosure of the reasons of the collegiums of the Supreme Court and/or High Court with regard to the recommendations of the appointments, non-appointments, non-confirmations of HC Judge and/or elevations or non-elevation of a High Court Judge to Supreme Court or as Chief Justice of HC and for making full-fledged Judicial review available in such situations to the candidates concerned or the Bar Association in general”.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has also condemned the decision to transfer Justice Jayant Patel to the Allahabad High Court. CJAR’s release had, in fact, raised “suspicions about political interference in judicial appointments since the Chief Justice of India seems to be acting at the behest of the central government.”

It had further made reference to Justice Patel’s order directing a CBI investigation into the controversial Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case and says that he is “being victimized for his courage and commitment to take on cases that went against the political establishment”.

Speaking to LiveLaw, Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave had also lent his support to Justice Patel and had said, “Justice Patel is an outstanding judge and human being. He was honest to core and very courageous. He stood firm for citizens, especially under privileged ones and sufferers of Government’s abuses. 

His victimization by the executive aided by the spineless collegium reflects state of the judiciary today. It is a very sad moment for all of us who love judiciary and the rule of law. I bow to him with folded hands and pray that his example opens eyes of those in power in executive and judiciary for a better nation.”

Mr. Dave had advocated for elevation of Justice Patel to the Supreme Court or as the Chief Justice of an important High Court in an article dated 16 March, 2017 published in The Wire as well. He had then written:

“Justice Patel, appointed on December 3, 2001, is senior to four of the five recent appointees. For no reason he is not being confirmed as chief justice although the previous collegium had recommended the transfer of the incumbent chief justice out of Karnataka to facilitate the appointment of Justice Patel in his place.

More painful is the fact that the collegium has recommended nine judges for appointment as chief justices in nine high courts. Each of them is junior to Justice Patel by periods ranging from two months to four and a half years. Why so?”