The Centre on Monday cleared appointment of 10 Judges for the High Courts of Gauhati and Delhi, a day after the Apex Court rapped the Government for the delay in judicial appointments.
The five appointments for the Delhi High Court are reportedly from Judicial Service and the five for Gauhati High Court are from both, the Bar and State Judicial Service. Recommendations for 35 Judges in Allahabad High Court are also being considered by the Government.
A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, had on Friday accused the Government of “trying to starve out the cause of justice by not appointing Judges.”
Expressing anguish over the delay in appointments, despite recommendations made by the collegium in this regard, the Bench had asked, “Courts rooms are locked down. Do you want to lock down the judiciary?”
The Judiciary was especially exasperated over the delay in appointments to the High Court of Allahabad, which is currently functioning at less than 50 per cent of its approved strength. This was despite the fact that the collegium had cleared eight such appointments in January, and 27 in August. Karnataka High Court has been experiencing a similar situation, with several Court rooms locked due to the vacancies.
The Court’s observations were issued on two Public Interest Litigations seeking filling up of judicial vacancies in various Courts throughout the country. The Court made scathing observations, and almost summoned the Secretaries in the Prime Minister’s Office and Ministry of Justice during the hearing.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi however sought one more chance to “come up with something positive” by November 11, the next date of hearing, defusing the volatile situation and preventing the summoning of the top officials. You may read the LiveLaw article here.
Soon after the observations by the Supreme Court, Centre had insisted that even it was keen on expediting appointments but was hamstrung because of the SC's own directive to appoint Judges on the basis of the new Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).
“If the government had intended to stall, it would not have appointed 86 new judges to high courts, four to the Supreme Court, 14 chief justices of HCs and accepted the collegium's recommendations for transfer of four CJs and 33 judges from HCs since December last year. It also made permanent 121 ad hoc judges in HCs,” sources in the Law Ministry were quoted as saying.
“The government is keen to implement the five-judge bench's mandate to reinforce the MoP with transparency and objectivity. How long can appointments go on under a system held to be flawed by the SC's five-judge bench?” the source asked, referring to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court, wherein it had directed the Government to draft a new Memorandum of Procedure [MoP] for appointment of High Court and Supreme Court Judges.
This was not the first time that the Chief Justice had lashed out at the Government over the issue of delay in appointments. Earlier in August, he had demanded a reason for the “mistrust”, saying, “The collegium has cleared 75 names of high court judges (for transfer/ appointment) but they have not been approved. I don’t know why, where these files are stuck.”
“I will take it up at the highest level and will come back to the court,” Mr. Rohatgi had then told the Bench and pleaded that no notice be issued for the time being in the PIL.
Not satisfied by Mr. Rohatgi’s repeated assurances, CJI Thakur had said, “Don’t force us to ask where the files are… don’t force us to judicially intervene… don’t try to bring this institution to a grinding halt… That’s not the right thing to do.”
It is to be noted that in April this year, during the National Conference of State Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, an emotional CJI Thakur had launched an unprecedented attack on the present and earlier Governments for often blaming the Judiciary for mounting backlog of cases, which touched an alarming 3.14 crore, but at the same time doing nothing to improve the number of Judges and increasing the number of Courts despite repeated pleas from the Judiciary.
This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.