SC Collegium Re-Recommends Advocate Harnaresh Singh Gill For HC Judgeship After Centre Returns Proposal Without Giving Any Reasons

Apoorva Mandhani

4 Aug 2018 6:24 AM GMT

  • SC Collegium Re-Recommends Advocate Harnaresh Singh Gill For HC Judgeship After Centre Returns Proposal Without Giving Any Reasons

    In a resolution passed on August 1, the Supreme Court collegium noted that the proposal to elevate Advocate Harnaresh Singh Gill as a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge was rejected by the Centre without assignment any reasons.The Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice MB Lokur then reiterated the recommendation, asserting that it must...

    In a resolution passed on August 1, the Supreme Court collegium noted that the proposal to elevate Advocate Harnaresh Singh Gill as a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge was rejected by the Centre without assignment any reasons.

    The Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice MB Lokur then reiterated the recommendation, asserting that it must be processed expeditiously.

    The collegium noted that the proposal for Advocate Gill’s elevation had been initiated by the collegium of the Punjab and Haryana High Court along with six other Advocates. This proposal was cleared by the Supreme Court collegium in April this year.

    It, however, pointed out that while the Centre has approved the candidature of the remaining six Advocates, Mr. Gill’s name was returned back without giving any reasons. The collegium resolution states,

    “After appointment of rest of the six Advocates approved by the Supreme Court Collegium, the proposal in respect of Shri Harnaresh Singh Gill has been referred back to the Chief Justice of India for reconsideration without giving any reason whatsoever. No reason has been given why his appointment was withheld. Even now, no adverse material has been placed in the file.”

    It then noted that the High Court collegium had found him suitable to be elevated, on the basis of his “performance, legal acumen and arguing skill on the basis of interaction during court hearings”, and reiterated the recommendation.

    Read the Resolution Here

    Next Story