‘Collegium not a search committee’: SC asks Centre to explain delay in judges appointment
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Central government to provide detailed information regarding the names and numbers of judicial candidates recommended by the Apex Court’s Collegium for appointment to the higher judiciary, and to explain why these appointments have not yet been processed. The court also asked the Centre to clarify at what level these recommendations were pending.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said that the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium cannot be indefinitely delayed. The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a fixed timeframe for the Centre to act upon Collegium recommendations.
“The Supreme Court Collegium is not a search committee whose recommendations can be stalled,” remarked the CJI, addressing the delays in judicial appointments. The bench asked Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, to provide a list of the names reiterated by the Collegium and explain why these appointments are still pending.
The court expressed its anticipation of movement on some appointments currently under process, stating: “We expect [the appointments] to come very early.”
At the outset of the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, voiced strong objections to the AG’s request for an adjournment, highlighting the long-pending nature of the appointments. Sibal pointed out that some recommendations have been pending for years, frustrating the process of judicial appointments. “I do not know what the Centre gains by seeking adjournments in such cases,” he said, noting that the issue lay not in the Collegium’s process, but in the government’s delays.
The AG, however, objected to Sibal’s remarks, asserting that it was not a straightforward matter of delayed appointments. “Justice Sarangi could not join for six months,” Sibal noted in response, underscoring the impact of these delays on the judiciary’s functioning.
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who had filed a separate petition on the issue, argued that if the Centre does not act on the Collegium’s recommendations within six months the appointments should be considered as confirmed. Bhushan cited the example of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, whose appointment to the Delhi High Court has been delayed despite repeated recommendations by the Collegium.
The AG, while acknowledging that some appointments were pending, stated that “several reasons” were responsible for the delays and assured the court that these reasons would be disclosed transparently. “There are several reasons why such names are pending and we have no hesitation in disclosing the facts to the bench,” the AG stated.
Sibal urged the AG not to take the matter personally, to which the AG responded by emphasising that the issue concerned the institution, not individual preferences. “I am also on the side of the institution,” the AG replied, underscoring that these delays do not fall within the private domain of any individuals.
The bench reinforced the constitutional sanctity of the Collegium’s recommendations, stressing that they were not comparable to the findings of ordinary search committees, which can be indefinitely delayed or set aside by the government. However, the court granted the AG’s request for adjournment after considering his health condition.
Meanwhile, the ongoing tussle between the Centre and the Hemant Soren-led Jharkhand government regarding the appointment of Justice M S Ramachandra Rao as Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court was also mentioned in the hearing. The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended Justice Rao’s appointment on July 11, yet the government has not acted on it.
Sibal highlighted the delay in the appointment of Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi to the Jharkhand High Court. Despite being recommended for the position of Chief Justice in December 2023, Justice Sarangi could not join until July 2024. The PIL filed by advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal seeks to establish a clear timeframe for the government to notify judicial appointments once recommended by the Collegium. It argues that the current absence of a fixed period allows the government to arbitrarily delay these appointments, undermining judicial independence and the constitutional order.
The plea emphasises that delays in notifying judicial appointments imperil not only the functioning of the judiciary but also the broader democratic framework, stating that it “tramples upon judicial independence, imperils the constitutional and democratic order, and disparages the majesty and sagacity of the court.”
On September 19, the Centre informed the court that it would provide details concerning the Collegium’s recommendations on appointments for various High Courts. This follows a statement by the AG on September 13 that the Centre had received “sensitive material” related to the appointments, which had contributed to the delay. The Collegium’s recommendations, made on July 11, included appointments for the Chief Justices of seven High Courts across the country, but they remain pending. On July 17, the Collegium adjusted its previous recommendations following discussions with the Centre, hinting at the influence of the sensitive material that had been shared.
