Prashant Bhushan Writes To SC Registry Seeking Reasons For Deletion Of Petitions Against Centre's Delay In Judges' Appointments From Causelist

Advocate Prashant Bhushan has written to the Registrar of the Supreme Court seeking reasons for deletion of the petitions against Centre's delay in judges' appointments, without the knowledge or information of the presiding Judge and despite a judicial order for a specific date listing. 

On 5th December, Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners (Centre For Public Interest Litigation) in the batch of cases had orally mentioned to the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia regarding the deletion of the matter of the matter from the list. Though the petitions were initially shown in the causelist for 5th December, they were later deleted, he informed the Court.

"I am sure the Chief Justice is aware of it," Justice Kaul had responded said in response to Bhushan's remarks.

"I clarify that it is not that I have deleted the matter or that I am unwilling to take the matter. Both", Justice Kaul had said in court. 

Subsequently, Bhushan wrote a letter to the Registry (Listing) on 8th December, asking for reasons for the deletion of the case from the causelist despite having a specific date posting. 

"Representing the petitioners since 2018 in this important case seeking accountability of the executive in matters of judicial appointments impinging upon the independence of the judiciary, this seemed extremely unusual, especially since the deletion was without the knowledge of the presiding senior judge and in violation of a judicial order" he said in his letter. 

Bhushan highlighted that the bench had given a specific date of hearing since the bench had passed a series of orders in the matter for strict compliance by the union government in matters related to notifying judicial appointments and was monitoring its progress in a time-bound manner. 

"This matter reflects grave impropriety by the registry in deleting the case from the cause list, despite a judicial order to the contrary, directing that the case be listed on a fixed date, that is 5.12.2023" the letter states. 

Referring to the Handbook on Practice & Procedure and Office Procedure, 2017 based on the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 he has stated that once a cause list is published it cannot be changed. 

In view of the rules and procedures, the Registrar (Listing) could only have deviated from the rules, if there were special orders from the Chief Justice in this regard, the letter contends. If a specific date case could not be listed, instructions for the listing of the case ought to be obtained from the presiding judge himself, Justice Kaul, in this case, Bhushan's letter says.

"In this matter, the presiding judge was completely unaware of the non-listing of this case and has categorically stated so in court, hence the deviation from said rules and procedures are even more serious and peculiar" the letter states. 

On several previous occasions, the bench had criticised the Central Government for sitting over collegium resolutions. The Centre's "pick and choose" approach whereby only certain recommendations are approved and certain others are kept pending also came under the harsh criticism of the Court.

Justice Kaul, who had earlier told the Attorney General that he will post the matter at regular intervals to monitor the progress in appointments, is retiring with effect from December 25. The Court will close for winter vacations on December 15.

Last week, Bhushan had written a similar letter to the Registry against the 'arbitrary' listing of a batch of matters before a bench led by Justice Bela Trivedi. The cases challenge the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) against journalists and lawyers regarding their fact-finding report on Tripura riots. Bhushan had said that the matter ought to have been listed before a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, since the matter was being previously being heard by the bench presided by the CJI. 

Last week, Sr. Adv. Dushyant Dave had written an open letter to CJI Chandrachud about change of benches in 'sensitive matters', stating that listing rules were being disregarded by the Registry. Being the master of the roster, he had requested the CJI to rectify the errors in listing. 

Last month, the Advocate-on-Record for the Tamil Nadu Vigilance Director had also written to the Supreme Court Registry taking objection to the re-assigning of a matter to another bench contrary to the rules of listing.