Lawyer's Elevation As Judge Should Not Be Objected Merely On Basis Of View Expressed Or Case Conducted : Supreme Court Tells Centre

While hearing the matter relating to judges' appointments, the Supreme Court on Friday orally told the Central Government that elevation of lawyers should not be objected to merely on the basis of views expressed by them or cases conducted by them.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka was hearing a contempt petition filed against the Union Ministry of Law and Justice over its delay in acting on collegium recommendations. During the hearing, the bench reiterated its concerns- which were expressed at the previous hearings as well- regarding the Centre selectively keeping certain names pending. 

During the discussion, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul told the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani that judges are trained to do the job independently, regardless of the views which they may have held as lawyers. Justice Kaul also cited the example of Justice VR Krishna Iyer, who is widely accepted across all spectrums as a legendary judge, although he had a clear political association before his elevation.

"Attorney, you are the person to advise the government. As members of the bar, we speak on issues. We argue for parties. A good criminal side lawyer will appear for criminals. If he is appearing in economic offence matters, he will defend those people. That does not mean anything. There are people of different points of view. A court must reflect different philosophies and points of view. We praise Justice Krishna Iyer as on of the outstanding contributors 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 and trained yourself to do a job independently, dehors whatever may have been your political affiliations or what may have been your thought processes. They having a thought process does not mean that they are aligned one way or other. Bar is a different ball game. Bench is a different ball game. It is something which has troubled me and that is why I am telling you. Integrity of the lawyer is, of course, a qualification to be considered" - Justice Kaul told the AG.

The contempt petition filed by Advocates Association of Bengaluru had cited the instance of Centre delaying the proposal to elevate Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi as a judge of the Karnataka High Court. Sondhi later withdrew his consent for judgeship in view of the Centre sitting over the proposal to elevate him for more than a year, despite approving other names forwarded in the same resolution. There were speculations that Centre's inaction was over Sondhi expressing views against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Also from today's hearing : Judges Appointments | Timelines Will Be Followed, Pending Collegium Recommendations Will Be Cleared Soon : Centre Assures Supreme Court

Supreme Court Criticises Centre For Sitting Over Collegium Proposals For Judges' Transfer, Says It Gives Impression Of 'Third Party Interferences'