New Delhi: The government blinked first in the standoff with the Supreme Court collegium over the appointment of judges, with attorney general R. Venkataramani telling the top court on Friday that all efforts are being made to conform to the court’s timeline.The statement comes after weeks of criticism from law minister Kiren Rijiju, saying in one instance that the government will not simply clear any and all names recommended by the judges.However, on Friday, the attorney general said that 44 of the 104 names suggested by high court collegiums for appointment as judges are likely to be processed within the next two-three days. The rest will also be cleared soon, he said, according to LiveLaw.The bench recorded, “Attorney General submits that he has instructions that the government will adhere to the timelines as provided in the judgment. It is towards that objective that he submits that out of the 104 recommendations made by the collegium of the high courts pending with the government, 44 are likely to be processed and sent to the Supreme Court by the weekend.”The top court was hearing a matter related to the delay by the Union government in clearing the names recommended by the collegium for appointment as Supreme Court and high court judges.The assurance came after a bench of Justices S.K. Kaul and A.S. Oka once again took up the issue of the government delaying notification of the recommendations sent by the collegium. This, the judges said according to LiveLaw, affects the administration of justice and creates an impression that third-party sources are “interfering”.According to The Hindu, Justice Kaul said the government should not be guided by political affiliations or personal philosophy while considering the names of those who have been recommended for appointment of judges.“A criminal lawyer will appear for criminals. A defence counsel will appear in economic offences cases. That does not mean anything… There are different political affiliations and points of view… We praise Justice Krishna Iyer for outstanding contributions on the Bench… Look from where he came from! I do believe when you join as a judge, you lose many colours and you are here to do a job independently dehors whatever your political affiliations may have been… Integrity is the first qualification,” the judge said, according to the newspaper.Justice Iyer was a minister in the Left government in Kerala before his appointment as a judge.The attorney general agreed that there should be “fusion between two different points of views” and friction should be avoided.According to Bar and Bench, the bench then asked Venkataramani about the five names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium in November for elevation as judges of the top court. “Can the Supreme Court appointment hearing be deferred? I have some inputs but I need to have some time,” he submitted.The court said there should not be any delay and granted the request.Keeping the matter for further hearing on February 3, the bench added, “Please come with issuance of warrants and not only a smile.”Justices S.K. Kaul, Abhay S Oka, and law minister Kiren Rijiju. Illustration: The Wire‘Government has limited role in transfers’The judges observed during the hearing that regarding the transfer of judges, “the role of the government is very limited”.“The transfer of high court judges is done in the interest of administration of justice and exceptions apart, there is no reason for any delay on part of the government in implementing the same,” the bench said.Meanwhile, lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for a petitioner, said even names reiterated by the collegium – which the government is mandated to notify – are being sent back.“Twenty-two names have been sent back by the Central government and some reiterated (names) have been sent back and some of those sent back are even reiterated for the third time and some are ones which Centre feels we should consider it though not cleared by us,” the bench remarked, according to Bar and Bench.“What is to be done is that comments can be sent to us. We will look into the comments, see whether we want to reiterate it or drop the name. If we reiterate the name then there is, as per the present scenario, nothing which can prevent the appointment,” the judges asserted.The bench also expressed a concern that meritorious people were withdrawing their consent for judgeship because of the delay in clearing the names. “We have had examples where seniority has been disturbed. Now a negative impact of that is that the collegium will be very hesitant in sending the second list…,” it said.According to The Hindy, the judges also made a comment on the government’s statement in parliament. The government had said that the Supreme Court had rejected 25% of the names recommended by the high courts for judgeships, which added to the delay in judicial appointments.“We heard what you (Centre) said in the Parliament about the Collegium dropping names. It shows the scrutiny we do of the names forwarded to us. We drop names because of the opinions of consulting judges, materials on record and also the opinion of the government,” Justice Kaul told the AG.
