Judicial Appointments Are Now Taking Place, Multiple Petitions Unnecessary : AG Tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 9) adjourned the hearing of a petition seeking to direct the Centre to appoint judges in a time-bound manner after the Attorney General for India expressed reservations about "multiple petitions" being filed on the same cause.
AG told the bench that judicial appointments are now taking place and hence there was no requirement for the Court to entertain further petitions.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a PIL filed by Harsh Vibhore Singhal seeking a "fixed time limit" for the Centre to notify the appointment of judges as recommended by the Supreme Court collegium. In August last year, the Court had sought the assistance of the AG in the matter.
Today, AG Venkataramani told the bench that the same issue was heard by a bench led by Justice SK Kaul (since retired) in the case "Advocates Association of Bengaluru v Barun Mitra".
"Now things are happening. Process is taking place in good shape. I don't see why counsels should file petitions and seek further indulgence of the Court. I have some disquiet about it."
The bench adjourned the matter till next week.
It may be noted that in the said case cited by the AG is a contempt petition filed by the Advocates Association Bengaluru contending that the Centre's conduct violates the directions in PLR Projects Ltd v. Mahanadi Coalfields Pvt Ltd relating to judicial appointments.
Earlier, the bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 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.
Background
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". Additionally, the denial of notification of appointment violates the 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'.
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".
Case Title: Harsh Vibhore Singhal v. Union of India | Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 702/2023