Centre questioned by Apex court on pending transfer of HC judges

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Centre as to why judges and chief justices of high courts were not being transferred despite the collegium’s recommendations.

Published: 02nd January 2017 06:26 PM  |   Last Updated: 02nd January 2017 06:26 PM   |  A+A-

Supreme Court | File Photo

A view of the Supreme Court premises. (File/PTI)


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Centre as to why judges and chief justices of high courts were not being transferred despite the collegium’s recommendations, and asked it to file a status report on such pending transfers with detailed reasons in two weeks.
"Continuance of judges in the same high courts despite being transferred is giving rise to speculation and misgivings. If you (the Centre) have any problem with the recommendations then send it back to us. We will look into it. There is no point sitting over it," a Bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur told Attorney General (AG) Mukul Rohatgi.
Justice Thakur, who is demitting office on Tuesday as the Chief Justice of India, has regularly questioned the government over the appointment of judges for higher judiciary and both, the Centre and the judiciary, are at loggerheads with each other over the issue.
The AG said that the collegium has sent back 37 judges names to the government which is looking at them.
"What about the transfers of judges who have been recommended by the collegium? You are sitting over them for over 10 months," said the Bench also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.
Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani said the Rohatgi, being the top law officer of the government should have all the information.
Rohatgi said he needs to take instructions on the pending recommendations of transfers and sought three weeks time.
"I have no information about the transfers. Give me some time. I will come back in three weeks with full details," said Rohatgi.
Jethmalani also said that transfer recommendation of Justice M R Shah of the Gujarat High Court has been pending since February 2016.
"I do not understand why the government is so interested to keep this man over there," he said.
At the outset, senior advocate Yatin Oza said, "Things are really bad. I cannot say a lot of things in open court in the presence of journalists and media. Even recommendations which were made six months after Justice Shah's transfer have seen light of the day."
Oza said that the court should pass some orders on the issue in the interest of justice and the institution.
The apex court had on November 18, last year said that it has not accepted the Centre's stand of rejecting the 43 names recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for their appointment as judges of the various high courts and most of the names have been sent back for reconsideration.
The Centre had told the court that it had cleared 34 of the 77 names recommended by the collegium.
Rohatgi, on November 11, had told the court that the Centre had already sent the fresh draft of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for collegium‘s consideration on August 3, last year, but has received no response from the government.
The apex court had earlier rapped the government for delay in appointments to the higher judiciary despite recommendations made by the collegium and had said the entire institution cannot be brought to a grinding halt.
Maintaining that the appointment process "cannot be stalled" due to non-finalisation of the MoP, the court had criticised the tardy progress in processing files pertaining to judges' appointment and even warned that it may summon the secretaries of the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice to ascertain the factual position.
The Attorney General had said that non-finalisation of the MoP was one of the issues and had assured the bench that more progress will be seen in the near future on judge appointments.
The apex court had said it would not tolerate "logjam in judges' appointment" and would intervene to "fasten accountability as the justice delivery system is collapsing".
The bench had also said that if the government had reservations about any name, it could always come back to the collegium.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp