New Delhi: Two Supreme Court judges objected to the procedure adopted by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to finalize the names of candidates in the apex court, revealed a collegium resolution uploaded on Monday.
The motion said that Justices DY Chandrachud and S Abdul Nazeer had objected to the method adopted by CJI UU Lalit for finalizing the names of candidates through circulation of a letter written by them on 30 September.
The collegium meeting during which the proposal was finalized took place on 9 October.
Elaborating on the background of this development, the statement said that in a meeting on September 26, the collegium unanimously agreed to elevate Bombay High Court Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and passed a resolution to this effect. to be done.
Another 10 names were to be considered in the meeting to be held on September 30.
The meeting could not take place that day as Justice DY Chandrachud was in the court after 9 pm. Subsequently, CJI Lalit sought the finalization of the four names through a written letter on the same day, which was circulated among the judges of the collegium.
He was Justice Ravi Shankar Jha (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court); Justice Sanjay Karol (Chief Justice of Patna High Court); Justice PV Sanjay Kumar (Chief Justice of Manipur High Court) and senior advocate KV Viswanathan.
The resolution of the collegium further stated that Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph, through a letter, agreed to the names proposed by the CJI, while Justices Chandrachud and S Abdul Nazeer objected to this method of finalization of names. .
The CJI addressed a second letter to Justices Chandrachud and Nazir on October 2, but did not receive any response.
Meanwhile, the Union Law Minister wrote to CJI Lalit on October 7 to finalize his successor before stepping down in the first week of November.
With this in mind, the resolution states: “… no further steps are required and the unfinished business is closed without any deliberation at the meeting convened on 30th September, 2022. 30 The meeting of September, 2022 is discharged.”