New Delhi: Raising the pressing issue of pendency of appointment of high court judges despite recommendations made by the Supreme Court collegium, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP from Tamil Nadu P. Wilson, on Tuesday requested the Centre to resolve its “standoff” with the judiciary.He urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take a stand on the 230 pending recommendations of the Supreme Court collegium within a reasonable time period, and finalise a Memorandum of Procedure for the appointment of judges with a fixed time period for each stage of the appointment.Speaking during the zero hour in parliament, Wilson said that a third of the sanctioned posts of high courts are vacant. “Out of 1079 sanctioned posts of high court judges in 25 high courts, there are 401 vacancies. Nearly 1/3rd of sanctioned strength is allowed to lay vacant and the casualty is citizens of this country,” he said. He said that it has recently come to light that about 230 names have been recommended for appointment by the collegium, but the government is “simply sitting over these recommendations” without getting the approval of the President for months “for reasons best known to them”.“Such an inordinate delay in processing of the names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium directly affects the administration of justice, which is a sovereign function,” the DMK MP said.Wilson also pointed out that in 2017, 115 judges were appointed. In 2018, the number of appointments stood at 108 and dropped to 65 in 2019. He claimed that the Central government, instead of forwarding the collegium’s recommendations to the president, unreasonably sat over them.In the past few years, several high profile cases of delay in appointment of judges have surfaced. In 2018, the elevation of Justice K.M. Joseph was blocked by the Centre, but after the collegium buckled down, it was notified eight months later.Last year, the Centre was successful in blocking the elevation of Justice A.A. Kureshi – who once sent Amit Shah to custody – as the chief justice of the Madhya Pradesh high court. The collegium later modified its order and recommended him as the chief justice of the Tripura high court.Also Read: Centre Has Its Way, Supreme Court Collegium Reassigns Justice Akil KureshiJustice T.S. Thakur, who was then the sitting CJI, broke down in April 2016 during a conference of chief ministers and chief justices because of the delay by the Centre in clearing names recommended by the collegium.More recently, in December 2019, taking note of growing vacancies in high courts, the Supreme Court asked the government to take not more than six months to appoint judges recommended by the collegium.However, then CJI Ranjan Gogoi in February 2019 exonerated the Centre, saying delay in appointments is because of the collegium. Hearing a petition by an NGO claiming that the Centre had been sitting on recommendations made by the collegium to appoint high court judges, Gogoi said, “If at all there was a delay, it was on the part of the collegium and not the Union of India.”Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. Photo: PTIP.K. Bhat’s appointment blocked for third timeHowever, in some cases, the delay has been caused by the Centre expressing genuine concerns. The elevation of judicial officer P.K. Bhat as a judge of the Karnataka high court has been held back by the Centre three times because of allegations of sexual harassment against him.When Bhat’s name was first recommended in 2016, the law ministry cited a sexual harassment complaint against him and returned it. The Karnataka chief justice was asked by the then-Chief Justice of India to submit a report on the issue. However, even before the report was submitted and any probe conducted, the former termed the allegations against Bhat “incorrect and concocted to suit [the complainant’s] purpose”.The collegium recommended his appointment again on April 6, 2017, and as per precedent, the government was bound to comply with a recommendation reiterated by the collegium. The law ministry returned the recommendation in September 2017, terming the matter “serious and sensitive”, which demanded a “fair and proper inquiry”. But the then-CJI on October 13, 2017, again reiterated the Bhat’s recommendation.In April 2018, the law minister wrote to the CJI saying the “sensitivity of the issue” required a “fair, sufficient and conclusive inquiry into the complaint of the woman judicial officer”. The government did not receive any reply from the collegium and returned the recommendation on November 16, 2018.Also Read: From the Supreme Court, a Reminder that Justice Was Sacrificed to Save a JudgeWith this, the CJI ordered a proper inquiry report from the high court. A three-judge panel of Justices Narayana Swamy, Ravi Malimath and B.V. Nagarathna was constituted. The panel submitted its report on December 9, 2018 in which Justices Swamy and Malimath concluded that the statement made by the complainant appears “more truthful”. They said:“(a) The statement made by lady judicial officer, in our considered view, appears to be more truthful, straightforward and honest; (b) Statement made by PK Bhat would appear to be more as a legal defence. There is no specific denial of specific acts complained against him of sexual harassment. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept his version.”However, Justice Nagarathna concluded that the allegations against Bhat did not amount to sexual harassment. Following this, the SC collegium on October 15 2019, recommended Bhat’s appointment for the third time. At the time, the collegium was headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who was himself accused of sexual harassment.According to reports, the law ministry is now considering if the collegium could reiterate a recommendation when the inquiry committee by two to one majority found merit in the complainant’s sexual harassment claim.