A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka said the government had failed to follow guidelines laid out by the court last year for the appointment of judges on a fixed basis. It said many prominent lawyers did not agree to take the position of judge because of the Center’s approach and some of them withdrew their consent, which is at the expense of the rule of law. and the judiciary because it is difficult to find meritorious people willing to become judges.
There are 68 pending recommendations before the government, of which 11 are names the university has reiterated, which by court order becomes binding for the government to accept. The court is hearing a contempt petition filed by the Bengaluru Supporters’ Association through campaigner Pai Amit, alleging that the government is considering several recommendations made in 2019 and was later opposed by the university.
“We can see that among the names the government searches for and the university repeats their names, even those who have not been appointed. One person even withdrew his consent and the system lost a celebrity from the bar… In another case, the repetition was done three times. Keeping only names pending is unacceptable. It is becoming a kind of device to force people to withdraw their names (from the jurisdiction), ”said the bench.
Bench noted that backer Jaytosh Majumdar was proposed in 2019 and the recommendation was reiterated by SC university, but his name was not removed and he passed away recently. “It goes without saying that unless the benches are decorated by eminent people, the rule of law and Justice suffer,” said the bench. Although the court was hearing a contempt petition, it did not issue a contempt notice and issued a simple notice to the (judicial) and additional (administrative and appoint).
Senior Supporter Vikas Singh also gave court notice that SC university had offered in September to promote Chief Justice Bombay HC Dipankar Gupta to the apex court but the Center did not remove his name, in contrast to other names that were removed within days.
Last year, the apex court issued comprehensive guidelines on the appointment of judges and fixed time periods for all agencies involved in the process to make decisions. It has been stated that the intelligence office (IB) should submit its report/input within four to six weeks of the high court university’s recommendation to the Center, which will forward the file to SC within eight to 12 weeks of receipt of state opinion and IB report. The Chief Justice of India should then submit a recommendation/advise to the law minister within four weeks and the Center should make an appointment immediately or may resubmit the recommendation for reconsideration. If names are repeated, the Center will schedule an appointment within three to four weeks.
Realizing that HCs with 40% of vacancies were in a “crisis state”, the high court approved the order because there was no set deadline for the central government to forward the recommendations, which caused serious delays in the appointment of judges.
Alleging that there was willful disobedience to the 2021 ruling of the apex court, the petitioner sought contempt proceedings against government officials and a direction to ensure strict adherence to the timeframe. time set by the court.
