Collegium Proposals | 'Make Sure What Is Expected Is Done, Concerned With Some Issues' : Supreme Court To Centre On Judges' Appointments

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it still has some concerns regarding the appointment of the judges and told the Central Government to "make sure what is expected is done". 

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar was hearing a contempt petition filed by Advocates Association of Bengaluru against the Central Government over the delay in approving collegium recommendations. On the last occasion, the Court had expressed displeasure at the Centre for not notifying the transfers of High Court judges proposed by the collegium.

Today, the bench noted that there have been some "developments" after the last hearing, as several appointments of Supreme Court judges, High Court Chief Justices and High Court judges were notified by the Centre in the meantime. However, Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, assisted by Advocate Amit Pai, told the bench that the Centre has withheld approval for certain proposals, while approving other proposals made by the collegium on the same day. 

Datar told the bench that a chart has been produced detailing the status of different recommendations, which will indicate that the certain proposals have been kept pending. The senior counsel specifically mentioned the case of Justice K Vinod Chandran of Kerala High Court. Although the Centre has notified the appointment of Justice Sandeep Mehta as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court, it has not approved the proposal made on the same day to elevate Justice Vinod Chandran as Pata high Court's Chief Justice, Datar pointed out from the chart.

"In some cases, the recommendations made of February 7 and 9 have been approved in 2-3 days. But some appointments have not been done. In the the case of Mr.Vinod Chandran...."

Justice Kaul then interjected to say that in cases where the consent of the State Government was obtained soon, the appointments have been made.

"State Government's consent has to be obtained. If the State Government is prompt in giving consent, then one of the notifications have come very early. For example, in serial number 4 (Justice Sandeep Mehta), it appears that the consent must have been immediately sent"

"Then I take it that in the all the case the delay is on the part of the State Government's consent. Perhaps that is the only explanation", Datar replied.

Since the Attorney General for India was not available today,  short adjournment was sought on his behalf.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, raised the issue of Centre not acting upon recommendations which have been reiterated by the collegium. Justice Kaul said that this issue was flagged during the previous hearings as well.

"I am also concerned with some issues. Issues are more than one...",Justice Kaul said.

"This can't go on endlessly like this", Bhushan replied. "Exactly, I can assure you that we are equally concerned with what is happening", came Justice Kaul's reply.

"At some point your lordships will have to crack the whip. Otherwise this will go endlessly like this. Some appointments selectively they notify, others they don't do anything about. Transfer they don't do anything about",Bhushan urged.

"I am putting it after two weeks. Make sure, please make sure, what is expected is done. Communicate it to the learned Attorney General", Justice Kaul told the counsel representing the AG. The matter will be taken next on March 2.