A group of lawyers from Tamil Nadu met the Chief Justice of India (CJI) HL Dattu on February 23 seeking recall of the list of nine persons recommended for appointment as judges of the Madras High Court..The lawyers, who belong to the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHCAA), have alleged that two out of the nine names were already considered and rejected earlier. Further, they have alleged that four persons, whose names have been sent, belong to “dominant communities” which are already “over represented” in the High Court..This is not the first time lawyers are opposing the Collegium recommendations. The fact that many of such incidents are from Tamil Nadu, where judiciary is in shambles, is least surprising..In 2013, MHCAA lawyers had written to the then CJI Altamas Kabir urging the Collegium to return 15 names recommended for elevation to the High Court. Subsequently, in early 2014, a group of lawyers had laid siege to the chambers of the then Chief Justice of the High Court, RK Agarwal, protesting against the recommendation of 12 names for elevation to the High Court. Most interestingly, one of the sitting judges of the High Court, Justice CS Karnan, also joined the party and rushed into the court room when the hearing of a petition challenging the recommendations was in progress and expressed his strong dissent at the names recommended..The case subsequently, reached the Supreme Court but was rendered partly infructuous as the Supreme Court Collegium asked the Law ministry to return the controversial list; but the damage to the institution was done..Indeed, the Collegium itself might be rendered “infructuous” within a few months. But the fact that the judges are not even making an effort to ensure that it exits gracefully is disheartening – and sadly the Supreme Court does not seem to be setting an example..There have been reports of the Supreme Court Collegium being divided into two groups for the past few weeks. Rumours have been doing rounds that elevations to the Supreme Court have hit a road block due to the impasse between the two groups in the Collegium. One of the two groups, it is learnt, is not interested in pushing through any appointments given the fact that the judicial appointments process is undergoing a transition; and rightly so. But despite that, the Collegium arrived at a consensus to elevate Justice Amitava Roy. He will be sworn in today a day before he is due to retire from the Orissa High Court. But are such elevations necessary at this juncture is the larger question..Union Law Minister Sadananda Gowa had told The Hindu that “until the National Judicial Appointments Commission comes in place, the Collegium system will continue. We cannot let judicial vacancies lie open.” However, since the Judicial Appointments Commission Act was put in cold storage by the executive for the reason that the challenge to its Constitutional validity is pending before the Supreme Court, it was only appropriate that the Supreme Court reciprocated and took steps to decide the Constitutionality of the NJAC as early as possible. Instead, delaying the listing of the petition while continuing with judicial appointments has only sent the wrong signal..Having said that, it should also be mentioned that though the executive stated that it would not go ahead with the NJAC till the judiciary decided on its Constitutionality, the proposed elevation of Justice Mohit Shah was alleged to be an attempt to get “their man” into the Supreme Court. That it met with strong opposition from within the Collegium and from outside it, and was, subsequently, dropped makes for another story..It would be interesting to see where things would go from here given the fact that Justice Mukhopadhaya, one of the Supreme Court Collegium judges, will be retiring on March 14 this year. Justice Dipak Misra will be the new entrant in the Collegium, if at all the Collegium system still continues to be in place..Let it not be said of the Collegium that it was plagued by the “your man, my man” syndrome even while withering away. Indeed, the Collegium judges and especially the man at the helm should realise that “doing nothing” is, at this juncture, the “right thing”..Below is a list of controversial elevations to the Bench which met with opposition from Bar in the last couple of years..March 2013: Supreme Court Collegium rejects the names of Chief Justices of Bombay, Gujarat and Uttarakhand High Courts – Justice Mohit Shah, Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice Barin Ghosh – for elevation to the Supreme Court on the ground that their appointment would prove “counter-productive” to the administration of justice. .Gujarat High Court Advocates Association passes resolution criticising the Supreme Court Collegium for overlooking the “seniority” and “legal competence” of Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya. .May 2013: Punjab and Haryana HC Bar Association asks Supreme Court to reject recommendations made by the High Court Collegium headed by Justice AK Sikri..June 2013: Madras High Court Advocates Association urges Supreme Court to return the names of 15 persons recommended for elevation to the Madras High Court..July 2013: Letter written by Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya to CJI Altamas Kabir published by mainstream media. In the letter, Justice Bhattacharya alleges that he was overlooked by Justice Kabir led Collegium because he had opposed Justice Kabir’s sister’s elevation to the Calcutta High Court..January 7, 2014: Madras High Court lawyers lay siege to the then High Court Chief Justice RK Agarwal’s chambers seeking recall of the 12 names sent to the Supreme Court Collegium for elevation to High Court. .PIL filed in Madras High Court by Senior Advocate R Gandhi challenging the recommendations of the High Court Collegium. .January 8, 2014: Sitting judge of Madras High Court Justice CS Karnan rushes into courtroom during the hearing of the PIL; Protests against Collegium’s recommendations. .January 13, 2014: Supreme Court transfers to itself the PIL before the Madras High Court challenging the High Court Collegium recommendations. .February 2014: Supreme Court Collegium headed by CJI P Sathasivam directs the Law Ministry to return the controversial list of 12 names recommended for elevation to Madras High Court. .March 5, 2014: Supreme Court dismisses PIL by Senior Advocate R Gandhi; Holds suitability of judicial appointments cannot be subject to judicial review. .February 2015: Senior Advocate and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association Dushyant Dave writes to CJI HL Dattu opposing elevation of Bombay High Court Chief Justice Mohit Shah to the Supreme Court. Alleges Shah’s conduct unbecoming of a judge and lowered image of Gujarat judiciary. .Image courtesy: Supreme Court Website
A group of lawyers from Tamil Nadu met the Chief Justice of India (CJI) HL Dattu on February 23 seeking recall of the list of nine persons recommended for appointment as judges of the Madras High Court..The lawyers, who belong to the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHCAA), have alleged that two out of the nine names were already considered and rejected earlier. Further, they have alleged that four persons, whose names have been sent, belong to “dominant communities” which are already “over represented” in the High Court..This is not the first time lawyers are opposing the Collegium recommendations. The fact that many of such incidents are from Tamil Nadu, where judiciary is in shambles, is least surprising..In 2013, MHCAA lawyers had written to the then CJI Altamas Kabir urging the Collegium to return 15 names recommended for elevation to the High Court. Subsequently, in early 2014, a group of lawyers had laid siege to the chambers of the then Chief Justice of the High Court, RK Agarwal, protesting against the recommendation of 12 names for elevation to the High Court. Most interestingly, one of the sitting judges of the High Court, Justice CS Karnan, also joined the party and rushed into the court room when the hearing of a petition challenging the recommendations was in progress and expressed his strong dissent at the names recommended..The case subsequently, reached the Supreme Court but was rendered partly infructuous as the Supreme Court Collegium asked the Law ministry to return the controversial list; but the damage to the institution was done..Indeed, the Collegium itself might be rendered “infructuous” within a few months. But the fact that the judges are not even making an effort to ensure that it exits gracefully is disheartening – and sadly the Supreme Court does not seem to be setting an example..There have been reports of the Supreme Court Collegium being divided into two groups for the past few weeks. Rumours have been doing rounds that elevations to the Supreme Court have hit a road block due to the impasse between the two groups in the Collegium. One of the two groups, it is learnt, is not interested in pushing through any appointments given the fact that the judicial appointments process is undergoing a transition; and rightly so. But despite that, the Collegium arrived at a consensus to elevate Justice Amitava Roy. He will be sworn in today a day before he is due to retire from the Orissa High Court. But are such elevations necessary at this juncture is the larger question..Union Law Minister Sadananda Gowa had told The Hindu that “until the National Judicial Appointments Commission comes in place, the Collegium system will continue. We cannot let judicial vacancies lie open.” However, since the Judicial Appointments Commission Act was put in cold storage by the executive for the reason that the challenge to its Constitutional validity is pending before the Supreme Court, it was only appropriate that the Supreme Court reciprocated and took steps to decide the Constitutionality of the NJAC as early as possible. Instead, delaying the listing of the petition while continuing with judicial appointments has only sent the wrong signal..Having said that, it should also be mentioned that though the executive stated that it would not go ahead with the NJAC till the judiciary decided on its Constitutionality, the proposed elevation of Justice Mohit Shah was alleged to be an attempt to get “their man” into the Supreme Court. That it met with strong opposition from within the Collegium and from outside it, and was, subsequently, dropped makes for another story..It would be interesting to see where things would go from here given the fact that Justice Mukhopadhaya, one of the Supreme Court Collegium judges, will be retiring on March 14 this year. Justice Dipak Misra will be the new entrant in the Collegium, if at all the Collegium system still continues to be in place..Let it not be said of the Collegium that it was plagued by the “your man, my man” syndrome even while withering away. Indeed, the Collegium judges and especially the man at the helm should realise that “doing nothing” is, at this juncture, the “right thing”..Below is a list of controversial elevations to the Bench which met with opposition from Bar in the last couple of years..March 2013: Supreme Court Collegium rejects the names of Chief Justices of Bombay, Gujarat and Uttarakhand High Courts – Justice Mohit Shah, Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice Barin Ghosh – for elevation to the Supreme Court on the ground that their appointment would prove “counter-productive” to the administration of justice. .Gujarat High Court Advocates Association passes resolution criticising the Supreme Court Collegium for overlooking the “seniority” and “legal competence” of Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya. .May 2013: Punjab and Haryana HC Bar Association asks Supreme Court to reject recommendations made by the High Court Collegium headed by Justice AK Sikri..June 2013: Madras High Court Advocates Association urges Supreme Court to return the names of 15 persons recommended for elevation to the Madras High Court..July 2013: Letter written by Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya to CJI Altamas Kabir published by mainstream media. In the letter, Justice Bhattacharya alleges that he was overlooked by Justice Kabir led Collegium because he had opposed Justice Kabir’s sister’s elevation to the Calcutta High Court..January 7, 2014: Madras High Court lawyers lay siege to the then High Court Chief Justice RK Agarwal’s chambers seeking recall of the 12 names sent to the Supreme Court Collegium for elevation to High Court. .PIL filed in Madras High Court by Senior Advocate R Gandhi challenging the recommendations of the High Court Collegium. .January 8, 2014: Sitting judge of Madras High Court Justice CS Karnan rushes into courtroom during the hearing of the PIL; Protests against Collegium’s recommendations. .January 13, 2014: Supreme Court transfers to itself the PIL before the Madras High Court challenging the High Court Collegium recommendations. .February 2014: Supreme Court Collegium headed by CJI P Sathasivam directs the Law Ministry to return the controversial list of 12 names recommended for elevation to Madras High Court. .March 5, 2014: Supreme Court dismisses PIL by Senior Advocate R Gandhi; Holds suitability of judicial appointments cannot be subject to judicial review. .February 2015: Senior Advocate and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association Dushyant Dave writes to CJI HL Dattu opposing elevation of Bombay High Court Chief Justice Mohit Shah to the Supreme Court. Alleges Shah’s conduct unbecoming of a judge and lowered image of Gujarat judiciary. .Image courtesy: Supreme Court Website