Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Supreme Court on Monday, October 9, remarked that the Central government had “suddenly” forwarded all 70 pending proposals to the CJI DY Chandrachud-led Collegium in the last few days.

"From tomorrow onwards, we will start processing the names, we will try to finish it before the October vacation," added a bench of Justices SK Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Court was further informed by Attorney General R Venkataramani, that the appointment of Chief Justice to the high court of a sensitive state had also finally received the government's attention.

The bench went on to term this as a positive development.

Last month, Supreme Court had revoiced its concerns over delay on part of the Centre in dealing with collegium recommendations sent to it.

Seventy recommendations made by us since November 11, 2022 are pending with the Union Government, Justice SK Kaul had told AG Venkataramani.

Expressing its willingness to monitor the situation closely, the bench had further indicated that it would take up the issue every 10 days now.

These observations were made after the AG sought an adjournment for a week to consult with the government.

Earlier this year, Justice Kaul had told the AG who had submitted that new appointments of judges would be notified soon that, "Sometimes you take days, sometimes you do it overnight. Where is the uniformity? We will give you ten days".

Notably, the Supreme Court had in November last year, expressed displeasure at the Law Ministry for keeping appointments of judges pending, after the collegium has given them a go-ahead.

Court had then said that the inaction of the executive to confirm the appointments was being used as "some sort of a device to compel these persons to withdraw their names".

The bench made these observations in a petition filed by the Advocates Association Bengaluru, which has stated that "inordinate delays in the appointment of Judges to the Hon’ble High Courts after the recommendation by the Collegium headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India even after reiteration, is a direct contravention of the judgment dated 06.10.1993 passed by a Bench of Nine Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court in the Second Judges case (M/s PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.)."

The petitioners have submitted that the law laid down in the Second Judges case, and reiterated in the Third Judges case, is emphatically clear that once the name of a recommendee has been reiterated by the Collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India, the Government of India has no option of returning the name, and must make the appointment.

It is further submitted that the unreasonable delays in the matters of appointment after recommendations have been made by the Collegium headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, is detrimental to the recomendees.

The plea has sought direction for the contemnor to strictly comply with the time frame and refrain from segregating the names of the recommendees sent by the Collegium.

Case Title: The Association of Advocates Bengaluru vs. Shri Barun Mitra, Secretary (Justice) & Anr.