Judges Appointments : Supreme Court Seeks AG's View On Plea To Fix Time Limit For Centre To Notify Collegium Proposals

The Supreme Court on Friday (18.08.2023) sought the assistance of Attorney General for India R Venkatramani in a plea seeking for a "fixed time limit" for the Centre to notify appointment of judges as recommended by the Supreme Court collegium. The PIL was listed before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra. 

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal stated that the lack of time limit for notifying the appointments of judges as per the Supreme Court collegium recommendations is a ‘zone of twilight’.  

The petitioner further argues that the Centre "is under duty to appoint per Supreme Court Collegium's final recommendation and no discretion - expressly or deductively - is available to them to do otherwise."

He asserts that any delay or denial in notifying a judge's appointment who has been recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 to be appointed as a judge.

The PIL underlines the judgement of Supreme Courts Advocates on Record Association & Anr v. Union of India (1993)(Second Judges Case) to argue that the Centre does not have the discretion on whether to notify or not to notify appointments. Therefore, Centre should also not have a discretion on 'when to notify'.

"If independence of the judiciary was the North Star and if eliminating executive veto power in judicial appointments was the lighthouse for such independence that led to Second Judges Case, leaving a vacuum that enables the respondent to delay and not notify appointments renders the Second Judges Case a veritable toothless tiger without any talons for ensuring such independence," argues the petition.

It further contends that the Court cannot keep "coaxing, cajoling, exhorting or admonishing, persuading or cautioning" the Centre through the AG to notify pending recommendations. While referring to the same as "unthinkable", the PIL urges the Apex Court to use its powers under Article 142 "to fix this odious malady of interference and infiltration into its hallowed space by fixing a fixed time period for notifying all judicial appointments".

During the hearing, the petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, said, "I have personally seen the hon'ble judges of the Supreme Court coaxing the AG that appointments are pending for months".

After hearing the matter, the Supreme Court directed to serve a copy of the petition on the office of the Attorney General for India.

"We request the Attorney General to assist the Court," stated the bench.

It may be noted that the Supreme Court had earlier (in 2021) expressed grave concerns at the mounting vacancies of High Court judges and had emphasized that the Central Government should proceed to make appointments immediately after the Supreme Court collegium has cleared the names.

At the time, a bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Justice Surya Kant had provided a timeline and had observed that it would be 'advisable' for the Centre to follow the said timeline. The timeline is as follows–

1. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report/inputs within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of recommendation of the High Court Collegium, to the Central Government.

2. It would be desirable that the Central Government forwardthe file(s)/recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of views from the State Government and the report/input from the IB.

3. It would be for the Government to thereafter proceed to make the appointment immediately on the aforesaid consideration and undoubtedly if Government has any reservations on suitability or in public interest, within the same period of time it may be sent back to the Supreme Court Collegium with the specific reasons for reservation recorded

More recently, in February 2023, the Supreme Court had said that it still had some concerns regarding the appointment of the judges and told the Central Government to "make sure what is expected is done".

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar had expressed displeasure at the Centre for not notifying the transfers of High Court judges proposed by the collegium. On an earlier hearing, AG R Venkataramani had assured the Court that the timelines on judicial appointments will be followed and the pending collegium recommendations will be cleared soon. While expressing a serious concern that the delay in appointments "frustrates the whole system", the bench also flagged the issue of Centre "splitting up collegium resolutions" as it disrupts the seniority of the recommendees.

However, despite reiteration from the collegium, the Centre has continued maintaining silence on a series of months-old Supreme Court Collegium recommendations on appointments to High Courts. The list includes the appointments of Advocates John Sathyan, Somasekhar Sundaresan, and Saurabh Kirpal as judges. 

Case Title: Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. Union of India | Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 702/2023

Click Here To Read Order