Supreme Court laments “inordinate delay” in making judicial appointments

The Supreme Court Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan today held that retired judicial officers can be appointed as High Court judges as per Article 217 of the Constitution. Towards the end of the 31-page judgment authored by Justice Bhushan, the Bench makes some pertinent remarks regarding the delay in processing judicial appointments..While hearing a petition challenging the appointments of Justices VK Mathur and RS Jhala to the Rajasthan High Court, the Court’s attention was drawn to the judgment in SP Gupta v. Union of India and another – widely known as the First Judges case – as well as Article 224 of the Constitution..In para 27, the Bench discusses the rationale behind amending Article 224, noting that the same was done in order to cope with the increased workload of cases in high courts..“The temporary increase in the business of the High Court or by reason of arrears of work therein was a reason for appointment or reason for invoking power under Article 224.”.The fact remains that the above-mentioned scenario need not be resorted to, if judicial appointments are processed in a timely manner by all stakeholders concerned. However, today, vacancies at High Courts and the subordinate judiciary are rife, and are a major cause for the ever-growing pendency of cases. It was perhaps in this light that the Bench felt the need to make its closing remarks..The Bench goes on to note the direction given in SP Gupta that the process of appointment must be initiated at least one month prior to the date of an anticipated vacancy. However, the reality, as the Court observed, is quite different. The High Courts were the first be criticized for this..“In the first instance, names are not forwarded by the High Court in time. What to talk of sending the names one month before the occurrence of an anticipated vacancy, names are not forwarded even much after the vacancy has occurred.”.The other authority responsible for the delay in appointments, the Bench noted, is the Centre..“It is also seen that once the names are forwarded, they remain pending at the Executive level for unduly long time, before they are sent to the Collegium of the Supreme Court for approval along with the inputs of the Executive. Even after the clearance of the names by the Collegium, these remain pending at the level of the Executive..All this results in inordinate delay. Sometimes, it takes more than one year to complete the process from the date of forwarding the names till appointment. There are instances where time consumed is much more than one year even.”.The difficulty experienced by judicial officers as well as members of the Bar in waiting for their recommendations to come through is another aspect the Bench has delved into..“In the case of judicial officers of subordinate judiciary, who are recommended for appointment to the High Court, this process of consuming so much time adversely affects their tenure. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the judicial officers get a chance for elevation when only few years’ service is left. Thus, when unduly long time is taken, even this lesser tenure gets further reduced..Equally, members of the Bar, whose names are recommended for elevation to the High Court, undergo hardships of a different kind. It is unjust that the fate of such persons remains in limbo for indefinite periods and gives rise to unnecessary conjectural debates. It leads to unpleasant situations which can be avoided.”.The judgment ends with an appeal to all stakeholders to adhere to the time frame set for appointing judges to courts..“It is, therefore, in the interest of all the stakeholders, including the judiciary, that definite timelines are drawn for each stage of the process, so that process of appointment is accomplished within a time bound manner. We need not say more.”.The Bench’s remarks come at a time when lawyers across the country are carrying out dharnas and hunger strikes in protest of the burgeoning vacancies at various High Courts. The Supreme Court has attempted to address this malaise before, to little or no avail..It remains to be seen when the stakeholders – the Central government in particular – will begin to take the issue seriously..Read the judgment: