LiveLaw has been collecting data about pending recommendation of names of persons for appointment as judges to different high courts. Data collected about the high courts of Allahabad, Mumbai, Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gauhati, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana, and Tripura shows a very sad state of affairs regarding the status of appointment of judges to the high courts.For the Allahabad high court, the name of Basharat Ali Khan is pending with the Central government since April 4, 2016 after recommendation of the collegium. And the name of Muhammed Mansoor is pending with Central government since November 16, 2016.For the Calcutta high court, the name of Mohammed Nizamuddin was initially recommended by Supreme Court collegium, which was returned by the Central government on November 11, 2016. The collegium again recommended the name on November 15, 2016 and that was returned again on March 1, 2017. The collegium reiterated the name once again on April 7, 2017 and the name is still pending with the central government.Similarly, names of Samba Sarkar, Sabyasaji Choudhary, Ravi Kapoor, Arindam Mukherji and Sakya Sen were recommended on December 4, 2017 by the collegium but the file is still pending with the Central government. With 33 judges, the Calcutta high court is functioning at less than half the strength of sanctioned posts of 72. So much so that Calcutta lawyers called for five days strike to protest delay in filling up of vacancies.For Karnataka high court, the name of Narendra Prasad is also pending with the Central government for 11 months. Following a hunger strike staged by Karnataka lawyers for filling up vacancies, the Centre notified the appointment of five judges in Karnataka high court. For Madras high court, the names of nine persons including the name of Subrahmaniam Prasad, who is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court, are pending since December 4, 2017 with the Central government.Harnesh Singh Gill was recommended for appointment as judge of the Punjab and Haryana high court on April 6, 2017, the same is pending with the Central government.For Tripura, the name of Arindham Lodh was recommended by the Supreme Court collegium on November 1, 2017 and the same is still pending with Central government.Though the Central government is bound by the recommendation of the collegium, there is no stipulation as to the time frame within which the collegium recommendations have to be considered. It appears that the Central government is making use of this loophole of lack of time-limit by sitting over files to defeat collegium recommendations. Similarly, there are many names pending before Supreme Court collegium and decision is not taken in a time-bound manner.The data collected by the LiveLaw research team reveals that a staggeringly high number, more than 143 names, are pending for judicial appointment. Most of such names are pending at the government level, after clearance by the Supreme Court collegium.The names of persons recommended for Judgeship for various high courts collected by LiveLaw research team are given in a chart below:Credit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkCredit: LiveLaw News NetworkWhat prevents CJI fr0m requesting the Union to take time-bound decisions on recommendations?The data show that governmental inaction is at a peak when it comes to appointment of judges and filling of vacancies in the judiciary. In a country with enormous dunes of cases that are pending and more number being filed every single day, what is it that we legitimately expect from our government? Isn’t the government aware of its crucial role in setting the justice delivery system in smooth functioning, with adequate number of judges to handle the workload?The integrity of the judges is put to disrepute, because the common man, without understanding the huge pressure of workload on judges due to lack of adequate number of judges, attributes the case pendency to the effectiveness and attitude of the judges. This puts a judge through much stress, and that was what the nation witnessed when CJI Thakur failed to veil his emotions at a public function and had to dry his eyes, while speaking of the judicial workload. The CJI of this country had to literally plead to the government to fill judicial posts and to appoint adequate number of judges. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who witnessed the candid disclosure of feelings by the Hon’ble CJI, responded in his usual masterly style stating that he was not a person who would merely walk away from issues of importance; the prime minister assured that he would study the matter seriously and would find a way. All this happened in April 2016. The “way” is yet to be unravelled.CJI Thakur retired. Justice Khehar and after him, Justice Dipak Misra took over the highest chair in the Supreme Court. Neither of them shared the concerns that Chief Justice Thakur expressed. Probably, the Chief Justice of India is over-stressed on matters that the whole nation has its eyes on, that judicial appointments might have taken a backseat priority. Still, what prevents CJI from requesting the Union to take time-bound decisions on recommendations?Appointment to Supreme Court: Case of Justice KM Joseph and senior advocate Indu MalhotraThe names of Justice K. M. Joseph and Indu Malhotra, senior advocate, have been pending with the government after their recommendations by the collegium for elevation as SC judges during January 2018. Reportedly, the Centre does not favour the elevation of Justice Joseph, and is objecting to it for no reason. However, the real reason for the objection is widely speculated as the Centre’s unhappiness over Justice Joseph rendering a judgement against the Centre by quashing its imposition of presidential rule in Uttarakhand in May 2016. The artificial objection on seniority does not hold water, and appears to be an empty ruse to block the elevation of Justice Joseph. Because, in the Three Judges Case, it was categorically stated that merit was the predominant consideration for appointment as SC judge. It is clear from the collegium resolution on January 10 that it is aware of his position in the all-India seniority list, and yet recommended him, in view of his “outstanding merit”.Where, therefore, there is outstanding merit, the possessor thereof deserves to be appointed regardless of the fact that he may not stand high in the all India seniority list or in his own High Court– The pronouncement in the Three Judges CaseTo avoid a decision on the matter, the files are kept in a limbo. LiveLaw had earlier reported that the Centre’s response to recommendations of Justice Joseph and Indu Malhotra will act as a litmus test for its reverence to judicial independence.Corrigendum: Three in the list of the Calcutta high court – Shampa Sarkar, Ravi Krishan Kapur, Aridham Mukherjee – have been appointed as additional judges in the Calcutta high court on March 8, 2018.This article was originally published on LiveLaw
