Supreme Court Criticises Centre For Sitting Over Collegium Proposals For Judges' Transfer, Says It Gives Impression Of 'Third Party Interferences'
Flagging the issue of ten recommendations made by the Collegium regarding transfer of High Court judges remaining pending with the Central Government, the Supreme Court on Friday said that such delays by the government gives rise to an impression that there is 'third party interference' on behalf of these judges with the government."Ten recommendations for transfers have been made. These...
Flagging the issue of ten recommendations made by the Collegium regarding transfer of High Court judges remaining pending with the Central Government, the Supreme Court on Friday said that such delays by the government gives rise to an impression that there is 'third party interference' on behalf of these judges with the government.
"Ten recommendations for transfers have been made. These have been made in the end of September and end of November. In that the government has very limited role. Keeping them pending sends a very wrong signal. It is unacceptable to the collegium", Justice Kaul orally told Attorney General for India R Venkataramani.
It may be noted that the bar associations of the High Courts of Gujarat, Telangana and Madras had launched protests against some transfer proposals.
Stating that the matter was of considerable importance, the bench recorded in the order that, "The transfer of High Court judges is done in the interest of administration of justice and exceptions apart, there is no reason for any delay on the party of the government in implementing the same. The Collegium consults and seeks opinion of the judges and also the Chief Justices of the High Courts from where the transfer is being made and where to the transfer is made. Comments of the judges transferred are also obtained. At times, at the request of the judge concerned, alternative courts are also assigned for transfer. This process is completed before a recommendation is made to the government. Delay in the same, not only affects the administration of judges, but also creates an impression of third party sources interfering on behalf of these judges with the government".
The bench of Justices S K Kaul and Abhay S Oka were hearing petitions relating to Centre's delay in acting on Collegium Recommendations.
[Case Title: Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra And Anr. Contempt Petition (C) No. 867/2021 in TP(C) No. 2419/2019]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pai Amit, AOR IN CP 867/2021 Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv. Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv. Ms. Sonali Suryawanshi, Adv.IN WP 895/2018 Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Cheryl Dsouza, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Venkataramani, LD. Attorney General Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Mansi Sood, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR SCBA Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kaul, Adv. HC Orissa Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR
Headnotes
Constitution of India - Article 222- Constitution of India- Supreme Court critices the Centre for delay in notifying transfer of High Court judges as per collegium recommendations- Delay in the same not only affects the administration of justice but creates an impression as if there are third party sources interfering on behalf of these Judges with the Government.
Constitution of India - Article 222- Transferred judges do not carry label of 'bar judge' or 'service judge' - If a Judge is transferred from a Court, it is not as if a replacement can be provided from the Bar or the Service Judges of that Court as the total strength of the Court is specified. When the Judge is transferred to another Court, he is a transferred Judge neither categorized from the Bar nor from the Service. In the Court where he is transferred he occupies a physical position in the strength of that Court and unless correspondingly Judges are transferred from that Court, there will be lesser person appointed in that Court from the Bar/Services as the total strength of the Court to which transfer is made cannot be exceeded. The transferred Judge does not carry the label of a Bar or a Service Judge and it is up to the Chief Justice where to he is transferred to reduce the inflow in the Court of transfer, i.e., from the Bar or Service. Similarly if from the Court where to Judges are transferred, in turn Judges from either category are transferred to other Courts they in turn will carry the label of a transferred Judge and not from the Bar or the Service. This aspect has been clarified as there 5 appears to be some doubts expressed about how the system of transfer will operate.