Jharkhand Files Contempt Petition In Supreme Court Against Central Government For Not Appointing High Court Chief Justice

The State of Jharkhand has filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against the Central Government over delay in the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.“the Chief Justice performs important administrative functions and is the head of the Judicial family in the state. Regularly Appointed Chief Justice is essential for efficient administration of Justice and functioning of the Judiciary. It is further submitted that the unreasonable delays in the matters of appointment, after recommendations have been made by the Collegium headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, are detrimental to the administration of Justice in the state”, the petition states.The petition has been filed against Rajiv Mani, Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice, and other respondents for non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directions.“It is submitted that the actions of the Respondents/Alleged Contemnors in not making appointments in terms of the recommendations of the Collegium headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India have an adverse impact on the Rule of Law, which has been held to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution”, the petition states.On April 20, 2021, the Supreme Court in M/s PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. set strict timelines for the appointment of High Court judges. The Court had directed that after the Supreme Court Collegium reaffirms its recommendation for an appointment, the Government must process the appointment within 3-4 weeks.The petition states that despite this order, the appointment of a permanent Chief Justice for the Jharkhand High Court has been delayed significantly. Since December 2023, the High Court of Jharkhand has been functioning with an acting Chief Justice, with only 15 days of a regular Chief Justice in between. The petition contends that this has affected the independence of the judiciary and the administration of justice.“Unfortunately, the Alleged Contemnor/Respondent has not made the appointments in a timely manner, and have only delayed the appointments. In fact, despite the reiteration of recommendations by the Collegium of this Hon'ble Court, the Alleged Contemnor/Respondent has not acted. Resultantly, there has been a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary”, the petition claims.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of Dr. Justice BR Sarangi, a judge of the Orissa High Court, as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand. The recommendation was approved by the Central Government on July 3, 2024, after over six months. As a result, Justice Sarangi assumed office just 15 days before his retirement on July 19, 2024. The petition contends that the delay defeated the purpose of his appointment and hindered the administration of justice.On July 11, 2024, the Collegium recommended the transfer of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, to Jharkhand High Court as the Chief Justice. However, the transfer has not yet been notified by the Central Government.Notably, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani told the Supreme Court last week that he wanted to share certain 'sensitive information' regarding some of the recent collegium recommendations, which are pending with the Union Government. The AG was appearing for the Union in a PIL seeking directions for time-bound implementation of the Collegium Resolutions for judges' appointments.The present contempt petition asserts that the absence of a permanent Chief Justice for more than six months (with only 15 days of a regular Chief Justice in between) has significantly impacted the administration of justice in Jharkhand. The Chief Justice plays a crucial role in ensuring the smooth functioning of the judiciary, and the long delays in appointments, according to the petitioner, compromise the independence of the judiciary.The petition argues that the Central Government has wilfully disobeyed the judgment in the Second Judges case (1993), which held that if the recommendation is reiterated, appointment should be made as a healthy convention, the Third Judges case (1998), as well as the April 2021 order explicitly laying down timelines for appointments.The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) mandates that an acting Chief Justice should not be appointed for more than a month, and the process for appointment of a new Chief Justice should begin well in advance of the anticipated date of vacancy arising. Despite this, the State of Jharkhand has functioned without a regular Chief Justice for over six months, in violation of the MoP, the petition highlights.The State of Jharkhand has prayed that the Supreme Court punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of its orders, particularly the April 2021 ruling that set specific timelines for judicial appointments.The petition also seeks a direction to the Central Government to immediately complete the appointment of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand, as per ...

Jharkhand Files Contempt Petition In Supreme Court Against Central Government For Not Appointing High Court Chief Justice

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags