The ongoing tension between the judiciary and the government regarding the appointment of judges reached a new level on September 20, when the Supreme Court emphasised that the collegium is not a mere "search committee."
The court asked the government to provide a detailed explanation on why it had not acted on the recommendations made by the collegium for judicial appointments in the higher judiciary, despite repeated reminders.
The Supreme Court's collegium, composed of the five senior-most judges, including the Chief Justice of India, plays a crucial role in recommending judges for appointments and transfers in higher courts.
According to established convention, the government is expected to accept the collegium’s recommendation, especially if the names have been reiterated. However, the delay in confirming appointments has led to frustrations within the judiciary, sparking public interest.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked the government to specify the reasons behind the stalled appointments, particularly regarding the candidates whose names had been reiterated by the collegium.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice remarked, "A collegium is not a search committee. The government is obligated to address the reiterated names instead of treating it as if it has discretion to ignore them."
The case came up as a response to a public interest litigation (PIL) demanding that a fixed time limit be imposed on the government to act on the collegium’s recommendations.
The delay has caused concerns over the growing backlog of cases in courts due to the insufficient number of judges being appointed. The judiciary’s functioning has been impacted by the lack of swift appointments, leading to a broader conversation about the need for reforms in the appointment process.
In addition to the PIL, the Jharkhand government also filed a contempt plea against the Centre for its failure to clear the appointment of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao as the Chief Justice of the state’s High Court. Despite the collegium’s recommendation, the appointment has been pending, raising questions about the Centre’s handling of judicial appointments.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the government, expressed reservations about how much the court could intervene in this matter. He suggested that the appointment of judges is a sensitive issue that may require the Centre to exercise caution. However, the Supreme Court remained firm, with Chief Justice Chandrachud urging the government to provide clarity on the status of the recommendations.
In the midst of this hearing, the Supreme Court collegium also made some modifications to its earlier recommendations concerning the appointments of Chief Justices in various high courts.
Changes were made to the recommendations of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait for the Delhi High Court, Justice GS Sandhawalia for the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and Justice Tashi Rabstan for the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
The conflict over judicial appointments is not new. It has been a longstanding issue in India, with the judiciary and the executive frequently clashing over the control of the process.
The current collegium system, which allows senior judges to recommend appointments, has often been criticised by the government for lacking transparency and accountability. On the other hand, the judiciary defends the system as a necessary safeguard to ensure judicial independence and to prevent political interference.
The Supreme Court’s remarks underscore the growing impatience within the judiciary over the government’s slow response to its recommendations.
By stating that the collegium is not a search committee, the Chief Justice emphasised that the judiciary should not be left waiting indefinitely for the government to act on its recommendations. The expectation is that the government will fulfil its obligations as per established convention, without unnecessary delays.
With both the public interest litigation and the contempt plea from Jharkhand in play, the coming weeks are likely to see further developments in this ongoing battle between the judiciary and the executive.
The outcome could significantly influence the future of judicial appointments in India and whether reforms to the collegium system will be considered to address the growing dissatisfaction on both sides.
This tension also reflects deeper concerns about the relationship between the judiciary and the executive in India, especially as the judiciary continues to assert its independence while the government seeks a greater role in shaping the courts through appointments. The case is set to be closely watched as it unfolds, with important implications for judicial governance in the country.
Follow us
