Law Ministry clears files for appointment of five new judges after Calcutta High Court’s scathing order

The Union Law Ministry has acted on files for appointment of five new judges to Calcutta High Court, reports The New Indian Express.

The files will soon be sent to the Prime Minister’s Office, the report states.

The five files were initially rejected by the Central government and sent back to the Supreme Court Collegium nearly 10 months ago. The Collegium had reiterated the names and sent it back to the Centre, when it went into cold-storage.

The report also states that all five who are being considered are senior lawyers and the list includes one woman lawyer.

This move by the Centre to act on the files comes after some scathing observations were made by the High Court regarding the failure of the Centre in appointing judges to the High Court.

The observations were made by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Debi Prosad Dey in an anticipatory bail application of a Bengali Film Actor, Bikram Chatterjee.

The actor’s bail application could not be listed in time by the court as a result of which he was arrested by the police rendering his plea infructuous.

The Court, chose the occasion to allude to the problem of shortage of judges by referring it as a “very major problem that the oldest High Court of the country is encountering.”

Setting out the data regarding vacancies in Calcutta High Court, the Court had said,

“The sanctioned strength of Judges in this Court is 72 (seventy-two). Till a couple of years back, the sanctioned strength was 58 (fiftyeight). Today, this Court has a functional strength of 34 (thirty-four) Judges only. The present functional strength is, therefore, a little less than 50% of the sanctioned strength. During the first six months of this year, 4 (four) Judges have already retired. In course of the next month 3 (three) Judges and by November 8, 2017, another 4 (four) Judges including the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice would lay down office. In February next, 3 (three) more Judges would retire. If no Judge is appointed by February 11, 2018, the vacancy would rise to nearly 66%.”

Berating the political executive for its apathy in filling up vacancies to judiciary and its step-motherly attitude towards courts and judiciary, the Court had urged the Executive to act and had asked the Registrar General of the High Court to ensure that the concerns expressed in the order reaches the Union Law Minister.