Date:17/07/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/07/17/stories/2008071760101400.htm

National

Centre explains procedure on appointment of judge

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi: The Centre on Wednesday maintained in the Supreme Court that in appointing an additional judge of a High Court as permanent judge, the collegium of the Chief Justice of India and two other judges would take into account the views of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned and those judges of the High Court whom he had been consulted.

The Centre made this submission before a Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and M.K. Sharma hearing a petition filed by the former Union Law Minister, Shanthi Bhushan, and advocate Kamini Jaiswal challenging the appointment of Justice Ashok Kumar, Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High court. Earlier, Justice Ashok Kumar was in the Madras High Court.

The Bench, after hearing senior counsel Anil Divan and Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam for the Centre directed the matter to be listed for final hearing on September 16.

Mr. Divan submitted that the Government of India should be directed to strictly follow its own Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) in regard to future appointments of permanent judges of High Courts, particularly those relating to appointments of additional judges. He said if the procedure was not followed such appointments should be treated as void.

The Centre in its affidavit quoting earlier Supreme Court judgments said as per the Memorandum of Procedure evolved as per the judgments, the Chief Justice of the High Court must consult two seniormost colleagues on the Bench and forward the same to the Chief Minister along with the recommendations.

The Chief Justice, while sending his recommendations for appointing an additional judge as a permanent judge, would need to furnish statistics of month-wise disposal of cases and judgments (of the judge concerned).

A copy of the advice of the Chief Minister would be endorsed to the Chief Justice of India and the Union Law Minister to expedite consideration.

The MoP prescribes that the Law Minister would consider the recommendations in the light of such other reports as might be available to the government in respect of the names under Consideration and forward the same to the CJI for his advice.

The Centre, however, said: “From January 1, 1999 to July 31, 2007, a total of 351 Additional Judges were appointed as permanent judges; that in these cases the Supreme Court collegium was not consulted. The records indicate that successive CJIs have not consulted the collegium while considering the cases of appointment of additional judges as permanent judges.”