New Delhi, Sept 26: The Supreme Court on Tuesday voiced its disappointment at the “delay” in the appointment of judges and requested that the attorney general use his authority to find a solution while 70 collegium recommendations remained unacted upon by the government. Attorney General R Venkataramani requested a week to come back with directions on the pending proposals for judges’ appointment to the high court after a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia highlighted the issue. “I’m quiet today because the attorney general has asked for a very short time, but I won’t be quiet the next time,” he said. In the course of the hearing, Justice Kaul instructed Venkataramani to “use your good office to see that these issues are resolved.” “There were 80 recommendations pending until 10 names were cleared last week,” the bench declared. Currently, there are 70 suggestions, of which 26 are for judicial transfers, seven are for reiterations, nine are waiting without having been submitted to the collegium, and one is for the Chief Justice’s nomination to a highly contentious high court. It noted that all of these recommendations had been waiting since November of last year. According to Justice Kaul, there has been a seven-month pause since the suggestions that are still waiting underwent basic processing. “We have made an effort to move things along and keep a careful eye. To ensure that a significant amount of work is completed before I leave office on December 25th, I have promised the attorney general that this topic will be discussed every 10 to 12 days. Justice Kaul is a member of the collegium of the apex court, which oversees the recruitment of judges to the top court and the high courts.In the past, the Supreme Court and the Centre have frequently clashed over the collegium system for appointing judges, which has drawn criticism from a variety of sources. The Union Ministry of Law and Justice was being held in contempt of court, according to a petition filed by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru, for allegedly failing to follow the deadline given by the court in a 2021 ruling.Prashant Bhushan, an attorney representing the non-profit organisation Common Cause, produced a chart outlining the government suggestions that were still pending throughout the hearing. What is more concerning, according to him, is that even after the collegium recommends a number of names all at once, the administration separates them and makes only a few appointments. According to my information, numerous lawyers have withdrawn their consents because this has a negative effect on their morale, he stated.The government has held nine such names waiting without returning them, according to Justice Kaul, who agreed with Bhushan’s opinions. “I concur that it is really concerning how qualified applicants are withdrawing their consent to serve as judges. On October 9, Justice Kaul said that he had posted the case for further hearing. “We try to get the best talents, but due to pendency, lawyers whose names have been recommended for judgeship have withdrawn their names,” he added. For the petitioners, “The Advocates Association of Bengaluru” and Bhushan, senior attorney Arvind Dattar stated that the deadline must be adhered to by the Centre with a “hard push.”Due to the delay in appointments, which also affects their seniority, Justice Kaul claimed that some candidates have lost interest and withdrew their names. “Due to the role I currently hold, I am aware of one or two such excellent individuals. With AG’s promise, I’ll bring up this subject every ten days. I had several ideas for comments, but because the attorney general is only asking for seven days, I’m holding back,” he remarked.Bhushan requested the bench to issue a directive to ensure adherence to its decision, which set a deadline for approving the collegium’s recommendation. “I’m quiet today because the attorney general has asked for a very short time, but I won’t be quiet the next time,” he said. Use your influence to see that these problems are remedied, Justice Kaul advised. Justice Kaul stated earlier that he had requested the former Attorney General, KK Venugopal, to use his good offices to ensure that names were cleared, but he had only had partial success.On February 13, the Supreme Court issued a directive to the Centre directing it to ensure that “most of what is expected is done” in relation to recommendations made by the supreme court collegium regarding the appointment and transfer of judges. The highest court had already voiced its displeasure, describing it as a “very serious issue,” over the delay in approving recommendations for the transfer of high court judges.The government had informed the supreme court during an earlier hearing in the case on January 6 that every effort was being made to “conform” to the deadlines established by the top court for processing the names suggested by the collegium for appointment of judges to constitutional courts. One of the arguments before the supreme court was “wilful disobedience” of the deadline set forth in its decision from April 20, 2021 to help with the prompt appointment of justices. In that decision, the Supreme Court stated that if the collegium unanimously reiterates its recommendations, the Centre must nominate justices within three to four weeks.
