Appoint KM Joseph J, notify 5 HC appointments Collegium has reiterated: PIL in SC

The Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Central government to appoint Justice KM Joseph and five other judges whose names have been reiterated by the Collegium..As per the petition, the Second Judge’s case has settled the law with respect to the judicial appointment process by providing that the Executive must notify an appointment where a recommendation has been reiterated..The petition refers to six instances where appointments/elevations have been reiterated by the Collegium after the Centre initially objected to them..The most obvious example is that of Justice KM Joseph, whose elevation to the Supreme Court has been stalled by the Centre on grounds that hold no water. The Collegium had recently reiterated his name for appointment to the Supreme Court..After it met on May 16 this year, the Collegium had decided to defer its reiteration of recommending the elevation of Joseph J. The body had resolved to undertake further deliberation and broad-based consideration of other Chief Justices of high courts for elevation to the Apex Court..In its earlier meeting on May 11, the Collegium had revealed its unanimous agreement on the reiteration of Justice Joseph’s name for elevation to the Supreme Court..The Collegium had first recommended the name of Justice KM Joseph for elevation to Supreme Court along with the name of Justice Indu Malhotra, on January 10 this year. After more than three months, the Centre cleared the file of Malhotra J and notified her appointment to the Supreme Court on April 26..However, it refused to clear Justice Joseph’s file, sending it back to the Collegium with a 6-page explanatory note on why it did not want him to be elevated to Supreme Court. This had led to a huge outcry, with many in the legal fraternity alleging that the Centre did so because of a judgment rendered by Justice Joseph, by which he struck down President’s rule in the State of Uttarakhand..As the petition highlights, five appointments to the high courts have also been similarly reiterated by the Collegium. These include Justice Ramendra Jain, who was recommended for appointment as Permanent Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Krishna Bhat for the Karnataka High Court, Basharat Ali Khan and Mohammad Mansoor for the Allahabad High Court, and Mohammed Nizamuddin for elevation to the Calcutta High Court..Justice Ramendra Jain was initially recommended on March 26, 2018. After the Centre expressed reservations on the same, the recommendation was reiterated on April 17 this year. However, the Centre still refused to pay heed to this recommendation, instead extending Jain J’s term as additional judge for another six months..The Centre has also failed to approve the name of Krishna Bhat for appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge. As revealed in a letter penned by Justice Jasti Chelameswar earlier this year, Bhat’s elevation was stalled due to allegations of sexual harassment against him. However, then Chief Justice SK Mukherjee submitted a report giving Bhat a clean chit. Despite this, the Centre refused to sign off on his appointment..As Chelameswar J’s letter revealed, the Union Law Ministry directly approached Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court Dinesh Maheshwari, who ordered a fresh probe into the matter. This probe also failed to indict Bhat of the allegations. As the petition notes, and Chelameswar J expressed, the whole incident throws up a serious question..“…Law ministry or the Centre can interact only with the Chief Justice of India who is the head of the Collegium and cannot directly deal with the Chief Justices of the High Court…”.Basharat Ali Khan and Mohammad Mansoor were recommended for appointment as judges of the Allahabad High Court on April 4, 2016, and November 16, 2016, respectively. However, the government cited some complaints against them and returned their files for reconsideration by the Supreme Court Collegium. The complaints turned out to be frivolous, and the Collegium reiterated their names within days. Their appointments are yet to be notified by the government..The petition goes on to state that the name of Mohammed Nizamuddin was returned by the Centre on November 11, 2016. The Collegium recommended his name again on November 15 of that year. However, the same was once again returned on March 1, 2017..As per the petition, the state of affairs,.“…not only show complete disregard of the law so declared by this Hon’ble Court but also a virtual breakdown of the consultative process thereby diminishing if not destroying the primacy of the Chief Justice of India with regard to the appointment in the manner laid down in the judgment.”.The Centre has been sitting on these appointments and many more far beyond the period of six weeks that was laid down in the Second Judges case..“The court prescribed six weeks as the time within which the opinion of the various constitutional functionaries involved in the appointment process must be conveyed to the Chief Justice of India. It also held that the Chief Justice of India would send his final opinion to the President within 4 weeks for the appointment to be made by the President. The court further held that the whole process must be initiated at least one month prior to the date of the anticipated vacancy.”.In light of the same, the petition prays for a direction to the Central government to notify the appointment of judges whose names have been unanimously reiterated by the Collegium. A direction to the Centre to notify appointments to the high courts to which the government has not responded to for six weeks, has also been sought..A similar petition calling for strict timelines to be implemented at every stage of the process of judicial appointments was recently filed in the Supreme Court..Read the petition: