New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday once again rapped the central government for not acting on the recommendation of the apex court collegium to transfer some judges, saying the delay in notifying the proposal of the appointing body has resulted in “both administrative and judicial action”. which may not be pleasant”.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice AS Oka reiterated its concern over the alleged reluctance of the government in finalizing the transfer cases and said the issue was “serious” and it was “bothering” it. The court reminded the government that unlike in the case of new appointments, the latter had no role in the transfer of judges.
The bench, which was hearing a batch of petitions against the government on delay in appointments to high courts, was talking about the Supreme Court Collegium’s November 24, 2022, Resolution It had approved the transfer of seven judges. The government has not notified these transfers so far.
Furthermore, it emphasized that it would not allow any third party to “play” with the collegium’s decision on transfers. The statement was in the context of the protest raised by some State High Court Bar Associations against the transfer decision of some High Court judges.
The judges asked Attorney General (AG) R.K. Venkataramani, “There should be no question of transfer of judges from one court to another pending with the government for so long.” Postpone your discussion on transfers.
‘Pending transfers a very serious issue’
Friday’s proceedings began on a positive note when Venkataramani informed the court that the government would soon clear appointments to the Supreme Court in five days. Currently seven recommendations of the Supreme Court are pending with the government. While five were made in December, two were done earlier this week.
Later, when the bench wanted to know the status of the transfer cases, the AG asked the court to adjourn the hearing on this point. But the court was in no mood to relent and took note of the delay in processing the transfers.
“If the transfer orders issued are not implemented, what do you want from us? Should we take back judicial work from them (judges transferred). If we think it appropriate with our intelligence that a person should be working in Court B or C, but you keep it pending, isn’t it a very serious matter? This is more serious than anything else. You will take some very difficult decisions from us,” Justice Kaul told the AG.
The judges urged the law officer not to compel the court to take a stand “it would be very inconvenient”.
He underlined the way the government uses its discretionary power to finalize appointments, saying it does not follow a uniform pattern. “You (government) say you need time, but sometimes you do it (explicit name) overnight, while sometimes you take days. There should be a uniform pattern,” the judges said.
It then spoke of “problems” that arise when the government does not notify the collegium’s resolutions in time. Citing an example, the bench told the law officer that the government has not acted on the collegium’s proposal to elevate a sitting high court judge as chief justice. This appointment would have happened only after the transfer of the present Chief Justice of that High Court, which the government has not yet clarified.
Considering that the judge concerned has only 19 days left for his retirement, the collegium withdrew its earlier proposal and proposed to appoint the same judge as the chief justice of another HC in the Northeast. However, the government has not yet responded to this recommendation as well.
Justice Kaul remarked, “So, you want him (the judge) to retire without being appointed as the Chief Justice.”
The court also sought clarification from the government as to what it meant by saying that it was acting on the recommendations which were not approved by the collegium. “If the collegium has not given any approval, then where is the question of processing the names?” the bench asked.
It also noted in its order that the pendency of appointment proposals with the government has prevented the high courts from forwarding a list of candidates for the present as well as the likely vacancy to be caused in the next six months to the Supreme Court collegium and the central government. Stopped.
“We are not saying anything further,” the court said before granting adjournment in the matter for a week.
(Editing by Zinnia Ray Chowdhury)