A common private sector practice will now become mandatory for judicial appointments too. The Supreme Court in the case of Judge Khazia Mohammed Muzammil has made it mandatory to obtain police verification prior to judicial appointments. The Supreme Court, headed by Justice B.S. Chauhan and Justice Swatanter Kumar held the following:

1) We do express a pious hope that steps will be taken to ensure timely recording of the confidential reports of the judicial officers by appropriate authority  and in an elaborate format depicting performance of the judicial officers in all relevant fields, so as to ensure that every judicial officer in the State will not be denied what is due to him in accordance with law and on the basis of his performance;

2) We further direct that all the High Courts ensure that ‘police verification reports’, conducted in accordance with law, are received by the concerned authority before an order of appointment/posting in the State Judicial Service is issued by the said authority.

Khazia Mohammed Muzammil was a practicing advocate and was later appointed on a probationary period as District Judge. Khazia Mohammed had put in 3 years 10 months in service and was entitled to confirmation as a District judge. The Government refused to confirm his appointment because his name was placed in the “rowdy” list of the police, apart from other reasons.

The Government had alleged Khazia Mohammed, who was also General Secretary of an organization called Majlis-Isa-o-Tanzim, of harbouring criminals, who were involved in serious crimes like murder and communal riots, etc. and had made provocative communal speeches, which contributed to aggravate communal disturbance in Bhatkal in the year 1993.

The Supreme Court also has criticized the High Court of Karnataka and said “…the administrative side also appears to have dealt with the matter in a very casual manner. The averments made in the Writ Petition 16244 of 2000, if it were true, it was a matter of serious concern for the High Court as he was being appointed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge and would have remained as such for a number of years.”

The Supreme Court cited the resolution of the Full Court passed in its meeting dated March 15, 1988 which had resolved: “..that Judicial Officers Annual Confidential Reports shall be recorded in the Proforma at Annexure – ‘A’ for the period from 1.1.1988 onwards.”

The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Karnataka High Court for not maintaining confidential reports of judges and judicial officers. 

A copy of the judgment is available here.