The Supreme Court of India has recently reinforced the principle that the government must accept the reiterated recommendations made by the collegium regarding judicial appointments. This principle is rooted in established legal conventions that govern the appointment of judges. During a pivotal hearing, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with a three-judge bench, called upon the central government to provide a comprehensive list of candidates whose names have been reiterated by the collegium for appointments to high courts but remain pending approval.
According to established norms, when the collegium—a body consisting of the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court—reiterates its recommendations for judicial appointments, the government is obliged to act under those recommendations. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized this expectation during the proceedings, questioning the government about the specific challenges it faces in processing these reiterated names. He requested a detailed chart outlining the status of these candidates and the reasons for any delays, stating emphatically, "A collegium is not a search committee... The idea is not to unearth skeletons in the cupboard, but to move forward."
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who participated in the discussions, proposed that a fixed time limit be established for the government to respond to reiterated recommendations. He suggested implementing a rule stipulating that if the government fails to approve the recommendations within a designated timeframe, those recommendations should be automatically deemed accepted. This proposal aims to enhance accountability and ensure that judicial appointments are not unduly delayed.
This court inquiry comes against a backdrop of ongoing legal debates regarding the appointment process for judges in India. A separate plea filed by the Jharkhand government has drawn attention to the Centre's inaction regarding the appointment of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao as Chief Justice of the High Court. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Jharkhand, criticized the government's delay in approving the collegium's recommendation to appoint Dr. Justice BR Sarangi as Chief Justice of Jharkhand. He highlighted that the Centre only cleared this appointment shortly before Sarangi's retirement, raising significant concerns about the integrity and efficacy of the judicial appointment process.
In response to these pressing concerns, Attorney General R. Venkatramani expressed doubts about the extent to which the Supreme Court could intervene in matters related to judicial appointments. However, Chief Justice Chandrachud urged him to provide clarity regarding the reasons for the delays in appointing judges, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the judicial selection process.
Additionally, the Supreme Court collegium has recently passed a resolution concerning the appointment of Chief Justices for various High Courts, modifying its earlier recommendations for several judges, including Justice Suresh Kumar Kait (Delhi High Court), Justice GS Sandhawalia (Punjab and Haryana High Court), and Justice Tashi Rabstan (Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court).Â
This ongoing dialogue within the judiciary highlights the critical intersection between judicial independence and executive accountability in India’s legal framework. The Supreme Court continues to advocate for timely and transparent judicial appointments, reinforcing the notion that the effective functioning of the judiciary is essential for upholding the rule of law and maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. As these discussions unfold, the emphasis remains on ensuring that the judicial appointment process is not only efficient but also aligned with the principles of justice and fairness, ultimately benefiting the legal system and the citizens it serves.
Â
