On Wednesday, the Union government cleared some pending recommendations for the appointment of judges to the high courts. At the same time it continued to exercise its pocket veto against certain names.
On February 12 the Union government appointed advocate Tejas Dhirenbhai Karia, to the Delhi High Court while holding back the appointment of advocate Ms. Shwetasree Majumder who was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment to the same High Court prior to Karia for judgeship to the Delhi High Court.
Karia is a Partner with the Dispute Resolution Practice at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and also heads the Firm’s Arbitration Practice. Perhaps, it is the first time that a person from a firm is appointed as judge. His wife Manisha Karia is a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Karia’s brother is also a judge at the Gujarat High Court.
On August 21, 2024, the Collegium comprising the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhanajaya Y. Chandrachud, the present CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice B.R. Gavai had recommended Ms. Majumder along with advocates Ajay Digpaul and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.
Karia was recommended for appointment to the Delhi High Court on August 29, 2024.
On January 8 this year, the government appointed both Advocate Digpaul and Shankar as judges of the Delhi High Court while withholding appointment of Ms. Majumder.
The Collegium while recommending Ms. Majumder’s name for judgeship had noted that she had extensive practice of more than 21 years and vast experience in civil matters, particularly intellectual property rights, technology, advertising and trade secret matters, which make her a valuable addition to the judiciary
The Collegium also stated that her elevation would promote diversity and inclusivity on the Bench of the High Court.
“The expertise of the candidate in the area of Intellectual Property Rights is of significant importance in view of the pendency of such matters in the High Court which are being dealt with by a dedicated IP Division. The candidate has substantial practice which is reflected in 35 reported judgments delivered in the cases in which she appeared/argued and her average net 4 professional income is Rs. 183.56 lakhs per annum during the last five years”, the Collegium had said.
Going forward, assuming Ms. Majumder is appointed in the future as judge of the Delhi High Court, she will be junior to Karia, something that collegium had not envisioned.
On February 5, the Collegium recommended the names of two judicial officers for their elevation as judges to the Delhi High Court. If their appointments are cleared before the appointment of Ms. Majumder, her inter-se seniority will go below all those appointed before her.
The government yesterday cleared a few more names, which have been gathering dust at the Department of Justice.
The names of advocates Harmeet Singh Grewal and Deepinder Singh Nalwa have been cleared for appointment as judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The two were recommended by the Collegium on October 17, 2023 along with advocates Sumeet Goel, Sudeepti Sharma and Kirti Singh.
On November 6, 2023, the government cleared the last these three names but withheld the names of Grewal and Nalwa thus making them junior to the other three judges.
The government has also cleared the appointment of advocate Tajali Moulasab Nadaf as judge of the Karnataka High Court. His name was recommended by the collegium on January 17, 2023 along with the names of advocates Vijaykumar Adagouda Patil and Rajesh Rai Kallangala.
Both Patil and Kallangala were appointed as judges of the Karnataka High Court on February 9, 2023 while Nadaf’s was held back. Meanwhile, one more judge was appointed to the Karnataka High Court thus making Nadaf junior to that judge.
On January 4, 2024, the collegium had recommended the appointment of advocate Shamima Jahan and judicial officer Yarenjungla Longkumer as judges of the Gauhati High Court. A year later, the government cleared the name of Longkumer yesterday but let out Jahan’s in the process.
On October 17, 2023, the Collegium had recommended the names of advocates Siddhartha Sah and Alok Mahr as judges of the Uttarakhand High Court. Yesterday, the government cleared Mahr’s but withheld the appointment of Sah, who ought to have been senior to Mahr.
On the same day, the Collegium had made recommendations to appoint advocates Vinay Saraf, Vivek Jain, Ashish Shroti and Amit Seth in that order of seniority to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Saraf and Jain were appointed in November 2023, while the government held back the appointment of Shroti and Seth. Yesterday, the government cleared the appointment of Shroti but left out Seth’s name in the process.
The government's selective approach to the recommendations of the collegium has continued unabated.
On February 3, 2023, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka, while he dealing with a contempt petition relating to he inaction of the Government in implementing the decisions of the Collegium in the matter of the transfer of judges said it was “a serious issue; more serious than anything else” and warned the Union government of “unpalatable consequences” if the collegium’s recommendations to transfer high court judges were not given effect in the next ten days.
This contempt petition pertains to government's inaction on the collegium’s recommendations.
On November 20, 2023, when the Bench took up a contempt petition and flagged the inaction of the Union government over the transfer of judges, the Attorney General for India requested the Bench to take up the matter later and assured the court that it would not be disappointed after looking at the efforts he promised to make to ensure the recommendations were acted upon.
The Bench acceded to the request of the Attorney General and directed the matter to be listed on December 5, 2023.
However, the contempt petition was never listed on December 5, as directed by the Bench. When Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter before Justice Kaul, who was set to retire in a few weeks, he informed Bhushan that he had not deleted the petition from his court nor was he unwilling to hear it.
When Bhushan exhorted that the Bench to seek an explanation about the “very strange” deletion of the matter from the registry, Justice Kaul told him, “I am sure the Chief Justice (of India) is aware of it.”
He added cryptically, “Some things are best left unsaid.” At that time, Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud was the CJI and thus the master of the roster.
The contempt petition, which the Justice Kaul-led Bench had been hearing, has been listed for hearing only once since November 2023, in October 2024, even though the recommendations on the transfer of judges as well the appointment of judges continue to remain pending with the government.
The then CJI Chandrachud did not list the contempt petition flagging delay in notifying the recommendations of the collegium, nor has Justice Khanna done so in the first three months of his tenure as the CJI.
