The Supreme Court Collegium has done well against the Central Government’s efforts to block the appointment of some advocates as High Court judges. The three-member collegium, which recommends appointments to the High Court, has reiterated its decision to promote lawyers. Saurabh Kripal Delhi High Court, R. Madras High Court to John Sathyan And Somasekhar Sundaresan Bombay High Court, As it dealt in detail with the objections raised by the Center in each individual case, the intent behind the government’s ongoing tussle with the judiciary over appointments to constitutional courts stood exposed. The communication between the Collegium and the Center offers a glimpse into the volatile nature of the government’s objections to the proposed appointments, making it clear how badly the present dispensation wants to control judicial appointments. If an objection based on a candidate’s sexual orientation smacks of medieval ideological prejudice, then the attempt to block the elevation of some advocates on the basis of their social media activity exposes the mindset that treats appointments to the higher judiciary as a system of plunder. I see is for political loyalists. As pointed out by the Collegium, neither the sexual orientation of Mr. Kirpal nor the political views aired by the other two advocates would affect their suitability or integrity.
It appears that the government feels that potential candidates for judicial appointments should not have political views of their own, or that a tendency to make their views or opinions known would amount to potential bias in their functioning as judges. . This cannot be further contradicted by the fact that there are other names – to which the government seems to have no objection – who are closely associated with political parties. In fact, one might say that the history of judicial appointments is replete with examples of government law officers who enjoy the confidence of the political leadership at the Center or in the states, and lawyers who represent political leaders who are appointed to the Supreme Court. Positions are offered at both courts. and Benches of the High Court. An objection based on sexual orientation is particularly pernicious, as it runs contrary to the constitutional position against discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual preferences. The view that the collegium system of appointments is flawed because it is opaque and narrows the field of consideration is valid. However, the way the current regime is trying to filter out candidates it suspects may not be furthering its political agenda will certainly give the impression that any kind of government interference allowing judicial independence would be at stake.