Lawyers' Elevation As Judges Shouldn't Be Opposed Merely Because They Have Some Political Connections: Supreme Court Tells Centre

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 7), while hearing a plea seeking contempt action against the central government for 'sitting over' collegium recommendations in violation of the timeline prescribed by the court, orally said that the elevation of lawyers ought not to be resisted only on grounds of their political affiliation. Unless the candidate has a "deep-rooted political aspect that affects their judicial work", their political affiliation should not be a basis for rejecting their candidacy. 

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a petition filed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru seeking contempt action against the Union Ministry of Law and Justice for not adhering to the timeline set by the Court in a 2021 judgment for clearing collegium proposals on November 7, 2023. A writ petition filed by the non-profit Centre for Public Interest Litigation raising the issue of delay in judicial appointments was also listed along with the contempt petition.

Today, reiterating a sentiment expressed before, the court observed that a connection with any political party or dispensation was not a disqualifier by itself with respect to judicial appointments. Justice Kaul told Attorney General R Venkataramani - 

"You have a system of governance where different parties govern different states. Some lawyers recommended, even if they are not politically very active, may have some connections with the government or the ruling dispensation. You still clear it. Similarly, someone may have some connections...may not be a political activist in that sense...For instance, in Tamil Nadu or some other state...suppose someone is holding a law office...obviously if they are holding a law office they have some connection. But they should not have a deep-rooted political aspect that affects their judicial work. This may be someone close to your dispensation or to the opposition parties' dispensation. In both situations, this would apply."

In January, the judge had made a similar observation, asking the central government to not object to lawyers' elevation only on the basis of their views or the cases they handled. Citing the example of former Supreme Court judge VR Krishna Iyer, who is widely commended as a legal luminary despite his well-known political affiliations before his elevation, Justice Kaul insisted that judges are trained to do the job independently regardless of the views they may have held as lawyers. To the attorney-general, he had said, "There are people of different points of view. A court must reflect different philosophies and points of view. We praise Justice Krishna Iyer as an outstanding contributor to the bench. Look from where he came. When you join as a judge, you lose many colours and you are here to do a job, which you train yourself to do independently, dehors whatever may have been your political affiliations or what may have been your thought processes. Having a thought process does not mean that they are aligned one way or another. The bar is a different ball game and the bench a different one."

Once again, during today's hearing, Justice Kaul echoed this sentiment. He also illustrated this by pointing to his tenure in the Madras High Court collegium. He said, "When I was in Tamil Nadu, I sent recommendations from both groups - people perceived to have a connection with the ruling dispensation and people that were thought to be connected with the opposition - as long as they were not politically active."

"You have to balance these factors...Forty per cent of states are governed by opposition parties. There will therefore be people holding law officer positions or otherwise who have some association," Justice Kaul added.