New Delhi (Agency): The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed serious concerns over the “pick and choose” policy of the Centre in clearing the collegium’s recommendations for transferring high court judges. This observation was made during a hearing on two petitions alleging delays by the Centre in approving appointments and transfers of judges as recommended by the collegium.
Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, presiding over the bench, highlighted that out of 11 judges recommended by the collegium for transfer, only five have been transferred while six are still pending. This includes four from the Gujarat High Court and one each from the high courts of Allahabad and Delhi. Justice Kaul, a member of the apex court collegium, voiced concerns to Attorney General R Venkataramani, stating that such selective transfers do not send a good signal and create unfavorable dynamics.
The bench also noted issues with the appointment of judges to high courts, where eight out of the recently recommended names have not been cleared, with some of these judges being senior to those who have been appointed. The court emphasized the problem of selective appointments, highlighting that it leads to the loss of seniority and may deter qualified individuals from agreeing to serve as judges.
This issue was further underscored by references to older recommendations made by the collegium, which included names that have been reiterated once or twice. The bench stressed that the government cannot halt other recommendations if it has reservations about one particular name from the list provided by the collegium.
Attorney General Venkataramani informed the court that progress has been made regarding the reiterated names and requested that the matter be taken up after a week or 10 days. The court has scheduled the next hearing for December 5.
The bench also discussed a specific issue related to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where two senior individuals recommended have not yet been appointed. Moreover, in the Gauhati High Court, the appointment of a senior candidate was initially not cleared, leading to a serious note being taken by the court. However, the government eventually issued the warrant of appointment for that individual.