Supreme Court refuses to accept rejection of Collegium recommendations

The court had criticised the govt on its slow progress in processing of the collegium's references

In the latest twist to the standoff between the judiciary and the government over the selection of justices in the constitutional courts, the Supreme Court on Friday refused to accept the Centre’s decision to send back 43 of its recommendations for appointment of justices in the high courts.

The Supreme Court collegium, headed by the Chief Justice, had earlier furnished 77 names for judicial appointment, of which the Centre has cleared only 34 recommendations. When asked why more than half the references had been sent back, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on the behalf of the Centre, had on November 12 told the Supreme Court that the Union government wanted the collegium to re-evaluate the remainder.

“We have reiterated the 43 names for the appointment as judges of high courts which were rejected by the government and have been sent back for reconsideration,” a bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice A R Dave said on Friday.

The judiciary and the government have been at loggerheads on the issue of judicial appointments ever since the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2014 (NJAC), which sought to replace the existing collegium system. Since then, the Supreme Court has on several occasions rejected the alternate Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) submitted by the government in pursuance of the NJAC decision on various grounds.

The apex court had earlier taken the Centre to task for inordinate delays in the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary despite recommendations made by the collegium and noted that the entire judicial mechanism could not be allowed to come to a grinding halt. Defending the government’s stance, the Attorney General had cited the lack of concurrence on the MoP as one of the reasons for the delay.

Maintaining that the appointment of judges could be stalled due to the non-finalisation of the MoP, the court had criticised the government on its slow progress in processing of the collegium’s references and warned the Centre of summoning secretaries of the Prime Minister’s Office and Ministry of Law and Justice in order to apprise itself of the factual position. In response, the government had claimed that there were no logjams in the appointment process and had assured the court of swifter progress in the future.

On November 11, Rohatgi had also informed the court that the Centre had already sent a fresh draft of the MoP on August 3, but was still to receive a response on it from the judiciary.

The bench has now posted the matter for further hearing after the winter break.