Chief Justice To Have Final Say On Successor

The United Front government has made it clear that it would strictly go by the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India on the appointment of his successor in January next year.

The proposal for appointment of the Chief Justice of India has to be initiated by the sitting Chief Justice as per the 1993 apex court judgement in the Supreme Court advocates on record association case, Union law minister Ramakant Khalap said here yesterday.

According to the 1993 judgment, appointments to the office of the Chief Justice of India have, by convention, been of the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office and the proposal is initiated in advance by the outgoing Chief Justice of India.

 

Chief Justice J.S. Verma is to retire in January 1998 and an announcement of his successor according to conventions is expected to be made later this year.

Stating that the allegations against the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice M.M. Punchhi, by a group of lawyers were rather unfortunate, the law minister said though the government had received the representation against Punchhis appointment it was yet to form any opinion.

The Supreme Court Bar Association had also sent a copy of its resolution urging the Prime Minister not to act on the representation.

Khalap said since Justice Verma was slated to retire in January 1998 there was still time for the government to make an announcement and ultimately it was Justice Verma who would have to make the recommendation.

The law minister was non-committal when asked whether the law ministry was making independent inquiries to ascertain the validity of the allegations.

According to official sources, the law minister had a meeting with Justice Verma earlier this week and is understood to have discussed the situation arising out of the Justice Punchhi episode.

As per the 1993 judgment provisions in article 124 (2) enabling consultation with any other judge is to provide for such consultation, if there be any doubt about the fitness of the seniormost judge to hold the office, which alone may permit and justify a departure from the long standing convention.

The judgment has made it clear that for this reason, no other substantive consultative process was involved and therefore there was no reason to depart from the existing convention and consequently any further norm for the working of article 124 (2) in the appointment of the Chief Justice of India was unnecessary.