NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to explain why it had not considered the names put forward by the Collegium. It cautioned the Centre against treating the collegium like a “search committee” and requested a list of candidates whose names have not been considered thus far.
A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said, “Mr Attorney General, you please come out with a chart and tell us what is the status of each one of the recommendations, which have been reiterated by the collegium (of the apex court) and what is the difficulty, so far, in making those appointments because the collegium is not a search committee…”
Attorney General R Venkatramani, the top law officer representing the Central government, said that there is no doubt about it at all. “I do agree with the the lordship that the Supreme Court Collegium has definitely a status in terms of the Constitution,” he said.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal seeking direction from the Centre to fix a deadline for appointing the recommended judges.
It observed that ultimately the idea is not to unearth skeletons in the cupboard but to move forward, so that the business of governance proceeds, “that is all”. “When the search committee recommends appointing a judge at a place (Supreme Court or High Court), then it is the Centre’s discretion whether to accept it or not,” the CJI said.
“You come back to us and tell us what is the status of those that are pending,” the court said, and fixed the matter for further hearing after four weeks, without announcing any fixed date.
The bench also asked the Attorney General to make a list of the names reiterated by the apex court’s collegium and why it is pending and at what level it is pending, and also why it is pending.
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, referred to the name of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, who has not been appointed as a high court judge despite reiteration by the apex court collegium.
In the similar case, a plea was also filed before the Supreme Court by the Jharkhand government, seeking contempt of court action against the Centre for not clearing the Collegium’s recommendation made to appoint Justice MS Ramachandra Rao as the Chief Justice of the High Court.
As per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), on judges names, elevation and recommendations to various high courts, the Central government is obliged to accept the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation for appointment of judges if the decision has been reiterated by the top court.
The Supreme Court Collegium is a statutory body consisting of the five seniormost Supreme Court judges led by the Chief Justice.
Also in top court
SC bins plea against anti-defection law
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition challenging the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, noting that this was challenged and dismissed earlier too. The bench led by the CJI said that the Tenth Schedule has already been upheld by a constitution bench in connection with the case of Kihoto Hollohan against Zachillhu and Others, and it cannot take a relook.
Supreme Court’s YouTube channel hacked
The Supreme Court decided to take down its official YouTube channel after it was allegedly hacked in a potential security breach on Friday. An official statement said that the apex court would resume the channel after it reinstates full administrative control of it. After hacking the SC’s channel on Friday morning, the hackers broadcasted unauthorised content promoting XRP, a cryptocurrency developed by US-based Ripple Labs.
Govt reply sought on changes to NEET-PG
The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the last-minute changes to the NEET-PG examination pattern by the National Board of Education (NBE), saying it was “very unusual” and students could have a “meltdown”. The bench sought responses from the NBE and the Central government within a week on the students’ pleas. The matter was listed for hearing next on September 27.
Maneka Gandhi’s plea hearing deferred
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned to September 20, hearing on a plea filed by former Union minister Maneka Gandhi challenging the election of Samajwadi Party’s Ram Bhual Nishad from the Sultanpur Lok Sabha seat. Gandhi lost to Nishad by a margin of 43,174 votes in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The bench gave Gandhi’s lawyer time to file a detailed submission analysing the provision of limitation in other special statutes.