The Supreme Court today asserted that it cannot "run away from its own cause" and refused to budge on the Centre's plea that the petitions on judicial reforms, including appointments of judges in the high courts and the apex court, should not be heard on the "judicial side" and be rejected.
A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said that once a petition has been admitted for hearing by issuing notice, it cannot be wished away without a "formal order" of finality.
"It is our cause. How can we run away from our own cause," the bench, also comprising Justice N V Ramana, said when Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Centre and a lawyer, who has sought to intervene in the proceedings, submitted that this court should not hear the pleas.
The bench also prima facie did not agree with the contention of lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhaya, one of the PIL petitioners, that there should be all India judicial services to select judges.
"In a federal structure, the high court is the highest court of the state and it is not under the control either of the central government or the Supreme Court," it said.
At the outset, Rohatgi said that there should not be parallel proceedings as the executive and the judiciary are dealing with the issue of appointment of judges on the administrative side and the pleas be dismissed. The court rejected the submission.
Referring to earlier proceedings, the top law officer said that the Centre has been filing reports as and when it has been asked by the court to inform about the latest status on the appointment and transfer of judges in higher judiciary.
"I have been instructed to say that the government will render all assistance," he said while repeatedly submitting that the pleas should not be heard on the judicial side.
Rohatgi referred to the NJAC judgement and said that for almost last six months, the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which would deal with the appointment procedures of judges, is lying in limbo.
The bench got irked when lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara, who has sought to intervene in the hearing of PILs on the issue, sought recusal of the CJI from hearing the case.
During the brief hearing, the bench asked Nedumpara to
argue his case.
"Don't give us the lecture and come to your petition," the bench said initially and after being apprised that Nedumpara has not filed the PIL, it asked him to "sit down".
"We must lay down the law so that no one can come and waste the court's time by saying that the judge should recuse himself...If we decide against you (Nedumpara), you will be in serious trouble...We are doing our work for years and you people come and stand up and say whatever you want," it said.
Dealing with the prayer in one of the PILs that the number of judges should be doubled, the bench said let the vacancies be filled up first, then think about two-fold increase in the number of judges.
The bench has now fixed the matters including the PIL filed by 1971 war veteran Lieutenant Colonel Anil Kabotra, for hearing after one month.
The apex court had on November 18 last year said it had not accepted the Centre's stand of rejecting the 43 names recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for their appointment as judges of the various high courts and most of the names have been sent back for reconsideration.
The Centre had told the court that it had cleared 34 names out of the 77 recommended by the collegium for appointment as judges in various high courts in the country.
The apex court had earlier rapped the government for delay in appointments to higher judiciary despite recommendations by the collegium in this regard and said the entire institution cannot be brought to a grinding halt.
Kabotra, in his PIL, has referred to the huge backlog of cases and vacancies in the judiciary and sought a direction to the authorities in this regard.
He has sought a direction to the Ministry of Law and Justice to take "immediate steps" to facilitate filling up of existing vacancies in the judiciary across the country.
He has also sought a direction to consider and implement 245th report of the Law Commission on reforms in judiciary and to increase the judges' strength and infrastructural facilities in courts in the country.
The plea has further said, "The respondent (Centre) is duty-bound to facilitate filling up of existing judge strength across the country and to consider increasing the same substantially in terms of the Law Commission's report.
