Forthwith. the Table Below Shows the Names of the Judges Recommended
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 6 indefinitely sitting on these names that have been reiterated by the Collegium and thus subverting the appointment process by these dilatory tactics. Besides this the Collegium has also unanimously reiterated the name of Justice K.M. Joseph as judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which must hence be notified by the government forthwith. The table below shows the names of the Judges recommended for appointments and whose names have been reiterated, yet the government has not notified their appointments. This is against the settled law on judicial appointments as laid down in the second judges case, whereby if the Supreme Couft Collegium sends its recommendations to the union government, the government may send the name back for reconsideration by the Collegium. However, if the collegium reiterates its recommendation unanimously, the President is bound to issue the warrant of appointment. s. Neue or Counr PENDING REcoMMENDED Respouse rnou REITERATION No PERSON WITH ON Govenrmerr RECOMMENDED 1 lustice K.M Supreme Chief 10.01.2018 Rejected, Reiterated Joseph, Chief Court Justice vide Letter unanimously Justice, High of India dated by SC Court of 26.04.20t8 Collegium Uttrakhand on 16.07.2018 2 lustice P&H High GOI 26.03.2018 Made an Reiterated Ramendra Court observation on Jain on on 17.04.2018 Impending Transfer Reiterated 3 Mr. Krishna Karnataka GOI 23. 08.2016 Appointment on Bhat, PrinciPal High was stalled 06.04.20t7 District & Couft after a complaint Sessions was filed Judge, against him Bangalore before CII Rural TS Thakur Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) ? 4 Mr. Basharat Allahabad GOI 4.04.20t6 Centre citing Reiterated Ali Khan High some by collegium Court complaints within days I against him 5 Mr. Allahabad GOI 16.11.2016 Centre citing Reiterated Mohammad High some by collegium Mansoor Court complaints within days against him 6 Mr. Calcutta GOI Early 2016 Sent Back Reiterated Mohammad High on11.11.201 on Nizamuddin Court 6& 15,11.2016 I 0t.03.20t7 &7.04.20t7 APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH AS JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT 5. The name of Justice K.M. Joseph, Chief Justice of the High Couft of Uttrakhand, was recommended for appointment as Judge of the this Hon'ble Court, by the collegium vide resolution dated 10.01.2018. The Collegium resolution states, "The collegium considers that at present Mr. lustice K.M. Joseph, who hails from Kerala High Court and is currently functioning at Chief Justice of Uttrakhand High Court, is more deseruing and suitabte in all respects than other Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High courts for being appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court of India. While recommending the name of Mr. lustice K.M. Joseph, the Cottegium has taken into consideration combined seniority on all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts, apaft from their merit and integrity" (A copy of the Collegium resolution dated 10.01.2018, is annexed as Annexure P 1at (Pages 3o to 3z- 7. The recommendation was kept pending for four months after whichthenameofJusticeK'M.Josephwasrejectedbythe The rejection union government vide letter dated 26th Rpril 2018. placed at number 42 was on the ground that lustice Joseph was Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 7 on the all India High Court Judges' Seniority List with 11 Chief Justices of various High Courts who are senior to him. Further that if appointed the State of Kerala would have two Judges in the Supreme Court and that various other High Courts were not represented in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The executive thereby referred back the recommendation to the Collegium for reconsideration. (A copy of the letter from the Union executive to the Chief Justice of India dated 26.04.20L8, is annexed as Annexure P - 2 at (Page 33 to 3b 7. That on 16.07.2018, the Collegium reiterated its recommendation dated 10. 01.2018, for elevation of Mr. lustice K.M. Joseph, as Judge of the Supreme Court. The Collegium resolution reiterating the appointment stated: "The Collegium, on due consideration of all the aspects mentioned in the aforesaid two letters, resolves to reiterate the afore-mentioned recommendation, especially since nothing adverse regarding suitability of Mr lustice K.M. Koseph has been pointed out in the aforesaid leffers (A copy of the Collegium resolution dated 16.07.2018, is annexed as Annexure P - 3 at (Page 3Ia .D) APPOINTMENT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGES WHOSE NAMES HAVE BEEN REITERATED BYTHE COLLEGIUM B. The name of Justice Ramendra lain is a striking case of executive interference and malafide action in completely bypassing the collegium recommendation and the law as laid down by this Hon'ble couft on the judicial appointments. lustice Jain was initially recommended by judge of the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as permanent The collegium Punjab and Haryana High Couft on 26th March 2018' resolution states: Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) q "Taking into consideration the materials on record, including the recommendation of the High Court Collegium, views of our consultee colleagues and the report of the Judgement Eualuation Committee, the Collegium finds Mr Justice Ramendra Jain, Additional Judge, suitable for appointment as Permanent Judge. In view of the above, the collegium resolves to recommend that Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain, Additional Judge, be appointed as Permanent Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.' (A copy of the Collegium resolution dated 26.03.2018, is annexed as Annexure P - 4 at (Pase 38-.o 31 I 9.The government sent back the file to the Collegium for reconsideration. 10. On t7.04.2018, the Collegium reiterated the recommendation for appointment of Justice Ramendra lain as Permanent Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The collegium resolution stated: "The Collegium, on reconsideration, resolves to reiterate its recommendation for appointment of Mr lustice Ramendra Jain as Permanent Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court, especialty when no specific reason except the issue of his transfer for seeking reconsideration has been recorded in the file ...We do not see any good ground for linking the proposal of transfer of Mr Justice Ramendra lain with the propoal for his appointment as Permanent Judge and even for revisiting, at this cruciat juncture, the above-referred decision dated 2dh the March 2018, for his appointment as Permanent Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court' Inviewoftheabove,itwouldontybeappropriatethatthe Jain as proposat for appointment of Mr Justice Ramendra High Court is permanent Judge of the Punjab and Haryana Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) lo processed most expeditiously keeping in view that the curent term of Mr Justice Ramendra lain is going to expire very shortly on lqh April 2018." (A copy of the Collegium resolution dated 17.04.2018, is annexed as q Annexure P - 5 at (Page j{9ao Ir 11. Despite this reiteration by the Collegium, the government in blatant disregard for the mandate of the appointment process and the primacy of the opinion of the Collegium once reiterated, appointed Justice Ramendra Jain as Additional Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Couft on 19.04.2018. (A copy of the government notification dated 19.04.2018, appointing Justice Ramendra Jain as Additional Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is annexed as Annexure P - 6 (Page $&o \l3 I 12. Mr. Krishna Bhat, Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural, was recommended by the collegium for appointment as Judge of the Karnataka High Couft on 23.08.2016. However his appointment was stalled after a sexual harassment complaint was received by the Chief Justice of India. The then Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, Justice S.K. Mukerjee submitted a report to the Chief Justice of India giving Mr. Bhat a clean chit. Despite this the government withheld his elevation while accepting the recommendations of five others although all the five were juniors to Mr. Krishna Bhat' The appointment was then reiterated by the Supreme Court collegium on 6.04.20t7. The executive then wrote directly to the chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, who ordered a fresh probe into the complaint against Mr. Krishna Bhat and submitted a repoft clearing him of all allegations' law ministry or the Centre can 13. It is pertinent to point out that the who is the head of the interact only with the Chief lustice of India with the Chief lustices of the High Collegium and cannot directly deal Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) lt Court, who come under the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium in matters of judicial appointments. In a scathing condemnation of this move by the centre, Justice Jasti Chelameswar (retired), wrote to the Hon'ble Chief lustice of India on 21* March 2018, recording the impropriety of the executive directly contacting the High Court to reassess a collegium recommendation of the Supreme Court. He stated in his letter that the matter was "ripe for the consideration of the Full Court on the judicial side..." (A copy of Hon'ble lustice lasti Chelameswar's letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, dated 21* March 2018 is annexed as Annexure P-7at(Page t+t{ to QB r 14, The names of Mr. Basharat Ali Khan and Mr. Mohammad Mansoor were recommended for appointment as Judges of the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court collegium on 4.4.2016 and 16.11.2016. According to media repofts, the government cited some complaints against them and returned their files for reconsideration by the Supreme Court collegium. The report further states that the complaints were frivolous and so the collegium reiterated their names within days.