The Centre told the Supreme Court today that there was no logjam over judicial appointments in the country, a cause that is evidently of immense importance to Chief Justice TS Thakur..In a PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi defended the Central government by saying that judicial appointments were the topmost priority for the executive, and that files were being processed to get the appointments made as fast as possible..CJI T S Thakur interjected by saying that during a recent visit to Chhattisgarh, he was informed that a particular office had been lying vacant for nine months, which was a serious impediment to the delivery of justice..But Rohatgi had his defence ready. He explained that the delay was not always a deficiency on the part of the executive, and that sometimes the default was on the part of the concerned High Court collegium. For example, the Allahabad High Court had informed the Centre of a vacancy seven years after it arose. Despite having said that, he proceeded to clarify that he would not like to play the blame game, as the delay was a problem for everyone involved..Rohatgi also said that pending appointments in Chhattisgarh, Kerala and Madras High Courts have been cleared, submitting a sealed cover containing details of the status of judicial appointments..The case is now listed for September 30.
The Centre told the Supreme Court today that there was no logjam over judicial appointments in the country, a cause that is evidently of immense importance to Chief Justice TS Thakur..In a PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi defended the Central government by saying that judicial appointments were the topmost priority for the executive, and that files were being processed to get the appointments made as fast as possible..CJI T S Thakur interjected by saying that during a recent visit to Chhattisgarh, he was informed that a particular office had been lying vacant for nine months, which was a serious impediment to the delivery of justice..But Rohatgi had his defence ready. He explained that the delay was not always a deficiency on the part of the executive, and that sometimes the default was on the part of the concerned High Court collegium. For example, the Allahabad High Court had informed the Centre of a vacancy seven years after it arose. Despite having said that, he proceeded to clarify that he would not like to play the blame game, as the delay was a problem for everyone involved..Rohatgi also said that pending appointments in Chhattisgarh, Kerala and Madras High Courts have been cleared, submitting a sealed cover containing details of the status of judicial appointments..The case is now listed for September 30.