Collegium Resolutions: Two Advocates recommended for elevation to Gauhati High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names of two advocates for elevation to Gauhati High Court.

Advocates Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Nani Tagia were approved by the Collegium on the basis of the interaction with the recommendees and having regard to all relevant factors. The resolution states,

“…the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri Sanjay Kumar Medhi, and Nani Tagia, Advocates…be appointed as Judges of the Gauhati High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.”

The material considered by the collegium for approval of their elevation included the views of concerned Chief Ministers, State Governors, reports of the Intelligence Bureau, age, income, reported/unreported judgments as well as the views of those consulted.

However, Justice Ranjan Gogoi did not weigh in on deciding the proposed elevation of Advocate Nani Tagia, given that Tagia had practiced as a junior to Justice Gogoi when he was a lawyer. The resolution notes,

“So far as recommendation relating to Shri Nani Tagia, Advocate…is concerned, one of the members of the Collegium, Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, for reason of propriety, has not participated in the proceedings since Shri Tagia was his junior while he was in the profession.”

Five other nominees were proposed for elevation. Out of this, Advocate Angshuman Bora withdrew consent for elevation, as intimated through letter forwarded by the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court.

Two names, i.e. those of Advocate Dilip Mozumder and Judicial Officer, Kamalendu Choudhury were rejected. The reason (s) for their rejection is not clear. The resolution only states,

“…having regard to the material on record, we do not find them suitable. The proposal for their elevation is accordingly rejected.“

In respect of the two remaining nominees i.e. Advocate Manish Choudhury and Judicial Officer Selina Begum, the Collegium opined that the consideration of their proposed elevation can wait, given the material on record. The resolution states,

“…having regard to the material on record, we are of the considered view that consideration of their cases can wait. The proposal for their elevation is accordingly deferred for the present.“

Read the resolution below.