Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges of the Gujarat High Court:
1. Ilesh Jashvantrai Vora,
2. Gita Gopi,
3. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, and
4. Rajendra M. Sareen
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Statement dt. 12-02-2020]
President appoints the following as the Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court:
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 10-01-2020]
President is pleased to appoint S/Shri Justices:
(1) Dixit Krishna Shripad,
(2) Shankar Ganapathi Pandit,
(3) Ramakrishna Devdas
(4) Bhotanhosur Mallikarjuna Shyam Prasad,
(5) Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav,
Additional Judges to be Judges of the Karnataka High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 02-01-2020]
The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 15-10-2019, after taking into consideration the material on record, has approved the proposal for elevation of the following persons as Judges of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court:
1. Moksha Kazmi (Khajuria), Advocate; and
2. Rajnesh Oswal, Advocate
Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 15-10-2019, after taking into consideration the material on record, has approved the proposal for elevation of the following persons as Judges of the Gauhati High Court:
1. Soumitra Saikia, Advocate;
2. Parthivjyoti Saikia, Judicial Officer; and
3. S. Hukato Swu, Judicial Officer.
Supreme Court of India
1. Shri Satish Kumar Aggarwal,
2. Shri Ashok Kumar Verma,
3. Shri Sant Parkash Phutela,
4. Shri Karamjit Singh,
5. Shri Vivek Puri,
6. Mrs. Meenakshi I. Mehta, and
7. Mrs. Archana Puri
For the purpose of assessing merit and suitability of the above-named recommendees for elevation to the High Court, we have carefully scrutinized the material placed on record. On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Ashok Kumar Verma, (2) Sant Parkash Phutela, (3) Karamjit Singh, (4) Vivek Puri, (5) Mrs. Meenakshi I. Mehta, and (6) Mrs. Archana Puri, Judicial Officers are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
As regards Shri Satish Kumar Aggarwal, having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the
considered view that his case deserves to be remitted to the High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.
In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Ashok Kumar Verma, (2) Sant Parkash Phutela, (3) Karamjit Singh, (4) Vivek Puri, (5) Mrs. Meenakshi I. Mehta, and (6) Mrs. Archana Puri, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Resolution dt. 26-09-2019]
President appoints the following 3 Additional Judges to be the Judges of Kerala High Court:
[Notification dt. 21-08-2019]
Ministry of Law and Justice
Proposal for appointment of following three Additional Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:
1. Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta,
2. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma, and
3. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Having taken into consideration all relevant factors including the above-mentioned report of the Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 8-04-2019 for the appointment of Justices (1) Sharad Kumar Gupta, (2) Ram Prasanna Sharma, and (3) Arvind Singh Chandel, Additional Judges as Permanent Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court.
[Collegium Resolution dt. 31-07-2019]
Supreme Court of India
Proposal for appointment of following 9 Advocates as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, but only 2 Judges were recommended to be appointed as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.
Following are the names that were suggested:
1. Shri Mahendra Goyal
2. Shri Anurag Sharma
3. Shri Farzand Ali
4. Shri Manish Shishodia
5. Shri Ashvin Garg
6. Shri Rajeev Purohit
7. Shri Sachin Acharya
8. Shri Sanjay Jhanwar and
9. Smt. Anita Aggarwal
On the basis of interaction, the material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Mahendra Goyal and (2) Farzand Ali, Advocates are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.
As regards Shri Manish Shishodia, the Collegium is of the considered view that his name deserves to be deferred.
As regards S/Shri (1) Anurag Sharma, (2) Ashvin Garg, (3) Rajeev Purohit, (4) Sachin Acharya, (5) Sanjay Jhanwar and (6) Smt. Anita Aggarwal, having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that their cases deserve to be remitted to the High Court.
Therefore, Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Mahendra Goyal and (2) Farzand Ali, Advocates, be appointed
as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.
[Collegium Resolution dt. 24-07-2019]
Supreme Court of India
Proposal for the appointment of following 4 Advocates as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and 3 Advocates as Judges of the Telangana High Court:
1 Shri R. Raghunandan Rao (A.P.),
2 Shri T. Vinod Kumar (Telangana),
3 Shri Battu Devanand (A.P.),
4 Shri D. Ramesh (A.P.),
5 Shri A. Abhishek Reddy (Telangana),
6 Shri N. Jayasurya (A.P.) and
7 Shri K. Lakshman (Telangana)
On the basis of interaction, material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) R. Raghunandan Rao, (2) T. Vinod Kumar, (3) Battu Devanand, (4) D. Ramesh, (5) A. Abhishek Reddy, (6) N. Jayasurya and (7) K. Lakshman are suitable for being elevated to the High Court Bench.
Therefore, in view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that:
(i) S/Shri (1) R. Raghunandan Rao, (2) Battu Devanand, (3) D. Ramesh and (4) N. Jayasurya be appointed as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice; and
(ii) S/Shri (1) T. Vinod Kumar, (2) A. Abhishek Reddy and (3) K. Lakshman be appointed as Judges of the Telangana High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.
[Collegium Resolution dt. 25-07-2019]
Supreme Court of India
Proposal for appointment of 8 Advocates, as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court:
1. Shri Jasgurpreet Singh Puri,
2. Shri Suvir Sehgal,
3. Shri Girish Agnihotri,
4. Mrs. Alka Sarin,
5. Shri Inder Pal Singh Doabia,
6. Shri Kamal Sehgal,
7. Shri Puneet Bali and
8. Shri Vikas Bahl
On the basis of interaction, material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, (2) Suvir Sehgal, (3) Girish Agnihotri, (4) Mrs. Alka Sarin, and (5) Kamal Sehgal are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
As regards S/Shri (1) Puneet Bali and (2) Vikas Bahl (mentioned at Sl. Nos.7 and 8 above), the Collegium is of the considered view that consideration of the proposal for their elevation deserves to be deferred. Collegium was also of the view that Shri Inder Pal Singh Doabia deserves to be remitted to the High Court.
Therefore, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, (2) Suvir Sehgal, (3) Girish Agnihotri, (4) Mrs. Alka Sarin, and (5) Kamal Sehgal, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
[Collegium Resolution dt. 25-07-2019]
Supreme Court of India
Proposal for the appointment of following 9 Advocates as Judges of the Calcutta High Court:
Advocates
1. Dibyendra Narayana Ray
2. Jaytosh Majumdar
3. Sagar Bandyopadhyay
4. Amitesh Banerjee
5. Raja Basu Chowdhury
6. Manju Bhuteria
7. Vineeta Meharia
8. Lapita Banerji and
9. Sakya Sen
On the basis of interaction, the material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Jaytosh Majumdar, (2) Amitesh Banerjee, (3) Raja Basu Chowdhury, (4) Smt. Lapita Banerji and (5) Sakya Sen (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Calcutta High Court.
As regards (1) Dibyendra Narayana Ray, (2) Sagar Bandyopadhyay, (3) Smt. Manju Bhuteria and (4) Ms. Vineeta Meharia, (mentioned at Sl. Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 above), having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that their cases deserve to be remitted to the High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.
Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Jaytosh Majumdar, (2) Amitesh Banerjee, (3) Raja Basu Chowdhury, (4) Smt. Lapita Banerji and (5) Sakya Sen, Advocates, be appointed as Judges of the Calcutta High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.
Proposal for appointment of following two Advocates as Judges of the Calcutta High Court:
Advocates
1. Shri Ranajit Chatterjee and
2. Shri Kausik Chanda.
The above recommendation was made by the then Acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on 10-01-2019, in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues.
On the basis of interaction, the material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Shri Kausik Chanda, Advocate (mentioned at Sl. No. 2 above) is suitable for being appointed as Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
As regards Shri Ranajit Chatterjee, (mentioned at Sl. No.1 above), having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors including the fact that his average net professional income is below the prescribed income limit, the Collegium is of the considered view that his name deserves to be remitted to the High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.
Therefore, Collegium resolved to recommend Shri Kausik Chanda, Advocate as Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
[Collegium Resolution dt. 24-07-2019]
Supreme Court of India
President appointed (i) Shri Vishal Dhagat and (ii) Shri Vishal Mishra, to be Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date, they assume charge of their respective offices.
[Notification dt. 22-05-2019]
Ministry of Law and Justice
Proposal for appointment of following four Judicial Officers as Judges of the Delhi High Court:
On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Talwant Singh, (2) Rajnish Bhatnagar, (3) Ms Asha Menon, and (4) Brijesh Sethi, are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Delhi High Court.
Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Talwant Singh, (2) Rajnish Bhatnagar, (3) Ms Asha Menon, and (4) Brijesh Sethi, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Delhi High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.
[Notification dt. 06-05-2019]
Supreme Court of India
President appoints Justice Bimlendu Bhushan Mangalmurti and Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, Additional Judges of the Jharkhand High Court to be Judges of the Jharkhand High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
[Notification dt. 23-04-2019]
Ministry of Law and Justice
President appoints the following two Judicial Officers to be the Judges of Rajasthan High Court while exercising the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of Constitution of India :
The above mentioned, in order of their seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
[Order dt. 15-04-2019]
Ministry of Law and Justice
President appoints the following four lawyers as the Judges of Patna High Court:
The above-mentioned are to be Judges of the Patna High Court, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Order dt. 15-04-2019]
Patna High Court: The Bench of Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Anjana Mishra, JJ. dismissed a petition challenging the age requirements for District Judge examination.
Petitioner on account of having become overage for recruitment as District Judge (Entry Level) Direct from Bar Examination, 2019 prayed for a direction to modify the advertisement reckoning the maximum age of 50 years as on 01-01-2017 instead of 01-01-2019. Petitioner who was aged 52 years submitted that the maximum age prescribed, which is 50 years, should be reckoned on 01-01-2017 on the premise that the respondents have not held the examinations of District Judge (Entry Level) direct from Bar timely.
The Court noted that Rule 5(c) of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 provides that the recruitment shall be made, as far as possible, on a yearly basis. It was opined that the words used by the rule-making authority does not create a compulsion but mandates annual recruitment in the services ‘as far as possible’.
The phrase “as far as possible” means that the principles are to be observed unless it is not possible to follow them in the particular circumstances of a case. Reliance in this regard was placed on Osmania University v. V.S. Muthurangam, (1997) 10 SCC 741 where it was held that the said phrase inheres in-built flexibility. While the said phrase does not give a licence to conduct examinations lethargically or delay it for no valid reason but at the same time, the rigour of a mandate is made discretionary to a certain extent. Therefore, if the recruitment had been initiated after two years due to some intervening circumstances, there was no violation of the Service Rules.
In view of the above, the writ petition was rejected for being bereft of merits.[Ram Yad Yadav v. Registrar General, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 276, Order dated 05-03-2019]
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajiv Sharma, JJ., dismissed a contempt petition against a ‘Judge of a court of record’ purely on the question of law.
This petition was filed by the petitioner who was an advocate, against an alleged contempt of Court, said to be committed by the respondent who was the sitting judge of a High Court of having lost his temper along with the use of intemperate language against the petitioner. Additionally few other incidences were also stated wherein unsavoury innuendos were allegedly used plus the petitioner was threatened and warned that he would be sent to jail.
The question before the court was whether a contempt petition against the respondent “of his own Court” was at all maintainable. There were three ways for initiating proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act – (a) either taken up suo motu by a Court or (b) on a motion by the Advocate General or (c) by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. The consent of advocate general was necessary as he was a Constitutional Authority.
In the present case, a contempt petition was neither filed by the Advocate General or with his consent therein nor was taken up suo motu by the Court, therefore would be regarded merely as ‘information’. The court pressed upon the fact that the matter could only be taken up for consideration if it was ‘contempt on the face of it’ but in this case contempt cannot be initiated against a Judge of a Court of Record, on a charge of ‘committing contempt of his own court.’
The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1, also held that a contempt petition does not lie against a Judge of Court of Record.
The Court concluded by saying that “The duty of a Judge, after all, was to dispense justice – without fear or favour, affection or ill will, without passion or prejudice. It is not a part of his duty to please litigants or keep lawyers in good humor. A Judge, ironically, with respect to the office he holds, does not enjoy much liberty and freedom. The principal requirement for all Judges, and particularly for a Judge of Court of Record, is to maintain his independence. A Judge can also be very helpless at times with respect to the position he holds hence for the sake of the independence of judiciary, a Judge has to be protected, from vexatious charges and malicious litigations.” Hence for the above reasons Judge of Court of Record cannot be tried for committing a contempt of his own Court. [Chhitij Kishore Sharma v. Justice Lok Pal Singh, CCP No. 03 of 2018, Order dated 04-09-2018]
To dispose of pending consumer cases more smoothly, the Central Governement has notified a new model code of rules for appointment of Judges at various positions in consumer forums. It charts out ways by which vacancy can be filled on timely basis.
At present there are more than 5 lakh consumer disputes cases pending in India. In absence of the rules of appointment, as many as 400 vacancies have arisen due to which the pendency in consumer courts have increased.
The code also specifies that any consumer forum at any level won’t be able to keep more than 500 cases pending at a given time and necessary steps should be taken to minimise the pendency. In case average case filing goes above 1500 in a year in a district consumer forum, state government should establish an additional district court in the district. It was also laid down by the Department of Consumer Affairs that those positions that are likely to get vacant in case of retirement should be filled up immediately and this process should be completed in six months’ time in advance.
[Source: New Indian Express]
