Department of Justice cannot repeatedly return judgeship proposals; Supreme Court Collegium reiterates recommendation of two Calcutta High Court Advocates

Supreme Court: Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph J.J., while expressing its dimissory stated that the Department of Justice cannot repeatedly send back the same proposal which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium after duly considering the objections of the Government.

The Centre had sought reconsideration of elevation of Advocate Amitesh Banerjee and Advocate Sakya Sen for the second time. They were first recommended by the Collegium of the Calcutta High Court on 17-12-2018 which was approved by the Supreme Court Collegium on 24-07-2019. However, Department of Justice referred back their names on 23-07-2021 with additional Intelligence Bureau inputs in respect of Advocate Sakya Sen on 27-09-2021.

Supreme Court Collegium reiterated its earlier recommendation in respect of Advocate Amitesh Banerjee and Advocate Sakya Sen on 01-09-2021 and 08-10-2021 respectively. The Department of Justice, however, once again referred back the file on 25-11-2022.

Condemning the hither thither tactic, the Collegium stated that the Department of Justice did not mention any fresh ground for refusal for the second time.

“Moreover, after the Supreme Court Collegium reiterated the proposal on 01 September 2021, it was not open to the Department to repeatedly send back the same proposal which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium after duly considering the objections of the Government.”

The Collegium, thus, reiterated its recommendation for the second time and returned the file for processing the recommendations expeditiously for appointment of Advocate Amitesh Banerjee and Advocate Sakya Sen as Judges of the Calcutta High Court.


*Simran Singh, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Must Watch

The Supreme Court Collegium stated that every individual is entitled to maintain their own dignity and individuality, based on sexual orientation. Senior Advocate Kirpal’s openness about his orientation goes to his credit and rejecting his candidature on this ground would be contrary to the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

We Recommend

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.