SC Collegium recommends three appointments to Bombay High Court Bench, overrules IB objections against two of the candidates

The Intelligence Bureau had flagged that both advocates Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla and Jitendra Shantilal Jain had respectively worked with certain unnamed seniors in the past, and that the senior working with the former had written an article lamenting the alleged lack of freedom of speech and expression the country in the last few years.

—

ON Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium turned down the objection raised by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) against the appointment of advocate Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla as a judge at the Bombay High Court on the ground that he had earlier worked under an advocate who had written an article expressing concerns over the alleged lack of freedom of speech and expression the country in the last five-six years.

The collegium, which comprises Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, observed in a resolution published yesterday that the views expressed by a former senior of Pooniwalla had no bearing on his own competence, ability or credentials for appointment as a judge of the high court.

It also noted that Pooniwalla and his former senior (whose name was not revealed by the collegium) practise on the original side of the Bombay High Court. It observed that the junior counsel associated with the chamber of a senior on the original side are not engaged in a relationship of employer–employee with their senior.

"While juniors are associated with the chamber, they are free to do their own work and for all intents and purposes, are entitled to independent legal practice," the collegium stated.

On the candidature of Pooniwalla, the collegium opined that no adverse comments reflecting on his suitability had been made on his file by any stakeholder. It added that Pooniwalla has an extensive practice at the Bar, and specialised in commercial law.

In addition, the collegium noted that Pooniwalla professes Zoroastrianism and indicated that he would bring representation from a minority community to the Bench.

On the basis of these factors, the collegium, in its resolution, recommended to the government Pooniwalla's appointment as a judge at the Bombay High Court.

The collegium also, in the resolution, cleared the proposal to elevate advocate Jitendra Shantilal Jain to the Bombay High Court Bench. Regarding him too, the IB had flagged his work in the chamber of a senior on the taxation side about 20 years ago. The collegium noted that nothing adverse had been reported about Jain's integrity.

"The candidate has acquired considerable experience during his practice of 25 years with specialisation in tax litigation. The High Court of Bombay has a large volume of tax-related cases and a candidate with such background would be an asset to the work of the high court," the collegium said in its decision.

The resolution passed by the collegium also revealed that the members of the collegium had made enquiries with those who were conversant with the affairs of the Bombay High Court on the issue, which had been flagged by the IB, pertaining to his work in the chamber of a senior on the taxation side about 20 years ago.

"Enquiries have indicated that while it is correct that the candidate had ceased working in the chamber of that senior, he subsequently joined the chamber of a noted senior counsel at the Bar. The fact of the candidate having left the chamber of a senior earlier has no bearing on his ability, competence or integrity. Keeping in mind the above aspects and on an overall consideration of the proposal for his elevation, the Collegium is of the considered opinion that Shri Jitendra Shantilal Jain is suitable for appointment as a judge of the High Court of Bombay," the resolution noted. It again doesn't reveal the identity of the senior, or even the nature of the objection regarding Jain having worked with him.

The collegium also recommended the name of advocate Shailesh Pramod Brahme for elevation to the Bombay High Court Bench. There is no reference to any IB inputs regarding him in the resolution passed by the collegium.

This is not the first time that the collegium has overruled IB objections to those recommended for appointment as high court judges by high court collegiums.

Regarding senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, the government had objected to his elevation to the Delhi High Court Bench based on inputs from the IB and the Research and Analysis Wing, which had flagged that Kirpal is openly homosexual, and that his partner is a Swiss national.

Regarding advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan's recommended elevation to the Bombay High Court Bench, the IB's objection was to his having shared views on social media on several matters which are the subject matter of consideration before courts.

Regarding advocate R. John Sathyan's elevation to the Madras High Court Bench, the government objected to his sharing on social an article critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and another regarding the suicide of a medical aspirant, Anitha, in 2017, because she was unable to clear the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test. Sathyan had portrayed it as a killing by 'political betrayal' with the hashtag "shame of you India".

The collegium overruled all these objections and reiterated its recommendation for appointing the three as high court judges, holding that these objections did not impinge on their respective suitability, character or integrity for the office of high court judge.

The collegium had recommended Kirpal's appointment in November 2021, and Sundaresan's and Sathyan's respective appointments in February last year. In January this year, it reiterated its recommendations for their appointments. However, the Union government till now has not appointed Kirpal, Sundaresan and Sathyan as judges of the high courts.