[ad_1]
Supreme Court of India
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Centre on Thursday (September 19, 2024) told the Supreme Court that it will be providing some details next week concerning the collegium’s recommendations on the appointment of chief justices in several high courts in the country.
The submissions to this effect were made by Attorney General R. Venkataramani before a bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud while seeking an adjournment of the hearing on a PIL which is listed for hearing on Friday.
“I will be providing some details about the collegium’s recommendations. Please list the plea (which is listed on Friday) after a week,” the top law officer told the bench which also comprised justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The bench said the submissions for the adjournment can be made on Friday itself as the matter is already on board.
Meanwhile, the CJI informed Mr. Venkataramani that the State of Jharkhand has filed a contempt case against the Union government for not appointing a Chief Justice to the State High Court. The case is listed for hearing tomorrow (September 20) along with a public interest petition seeking time-bound judicial appointments.
Mr. Venkataramani said he did not know about Jharkhand’s contempt petition.
The Jharkhand plea said the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the transfer of Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao to the Chief Justiceship of the Jharkhand High Court over two months ago on July 11. However, the government has been sitting on the transfer recommendation without notifying it. The CJI said the PIL and Jharkhand’s contempt petition are already listed for September 20. The AG could make a mention for adjournment tomorrow.
Earlier, the attorney general on September 13 told the bench that the central government had received some “sensitive material” that had led to a delay in implementation of the apex court collegium’s recommendations on appointments of chief justices to high courts.
The top law officer said he received certain inputs from the Union government which are sensitive in nature and revealing them in the public domain would neither be in the interest of the institution nor of the judges involved.
“I would like to place the inputs and my suggestions in a sealed cover for perusal by the judges,” Mr. Venkatramani had told the bench.
The PIL filed by advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal was then posted for hearing on September 20.
Mr. Singhal has sought a direction that a time limit be fixed for the Centre to notify the appointment of judges recommended by the apex court collegium.
It has also sought a direction to plug the ‘zone of twilight’ of there being no time for notifying the collegium’s recommendations for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.
The plea said that in the absence of a fixed period, “the government arbitrarily delays notifying appointments thereby trampling upon judicial independence, imperilling the constitutional and democratic order and disparaging the majesty and sagacity of the court”.
The plea said if any name is not objected to or the appointments are not notified by the end of such a fixed period, then appointments of such judges must be taken as notified.
The three-member collegium headed by the CJI, on July 11, recommended to the Centre the names for the appointment of chief justices for seven high courts namely Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras and Meghalaya. The recommendations are pending approval with the Centre.
The Supreme Court collegium, on July 17, tweaked its July 11 resolution relating to the appointment of the chief justices for the high courts of Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
There were speculations that tweaking of the collegium’s July 11 resolution took place apparently after the Centre shared some crucial information with the collegium.
(With PTI inputs)
Published – September 19, 2024 01:29 pm IST
[ad_2]
Source link
