Appointments & TransfersNews

The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 15-10-2019, on reconsideration and in the modification of its earlier recommendations dated 28-08-2019, has decided to recommend the following transfers:

S.

No.

Name of the Chief Justice / Judge

High Court

From

High Court

To

1.

A.P. Sahi, Chief Justice Patna Madras

2.

A.K. Mittal, Chief Justice Meghalaya

Madhya Pradesh

3. Sanjay Karol, Chief Justice Tripura

Patna


Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

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

Appointments & TransfersNews

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

Appointments & TransfersNews

Reconsideration of the proposal for appointment of following four Advocates, as Judges of the Karnataka High Court:

  1. Shri Savanur Vishwajith Shetty,
  2. Shri Maralur Indrakumar Arun,
  3. Shri Mohammed Ghouse Shukure Kamal, and
  4. Shri Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah Indiresh.

As regards Shri Savanur Vishwajith Shetty, his name has been sent back by the Department of Justice to the Collegium for reconsideration with the following observations:

“There is a complaint against Shri Savanur Vishwajith Shettythat he is having nexus with the underworld and land mafia which indulged in extortion.”

In view of the above, the Collegium is inclined to take the view that the allegations in the complaint dated Nil on the basis of which his name has been sent back for reconsideration are not tenable. The Collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 25th March, 2019 for the elevation of Shri Savanur Vishwajith Shetty as Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

As regards Shri Maralur Indrakumar Arun, his name has been sent back by the Department of Justice to the Collegium for reconsideration with the following observations:

“There is a complaint against Shri Maralur Indrakumar Arunstating that he does not have a clean and transparent professional career and indulges in corrupt practices.”

In view of the above, the Collegium is inclined to take the view that the allegations in the complaint dated Nil in light of which his name has been sent back for reconsideration are not tenable. The Collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 25thMarch, 2019 for the elevation of Shri Maralur Indrakumar Arun as Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

As regards Shri Mohammed Ghouse Shukure Kamal, his name has been sent back by the Department of Justice to the Collegium for reconsideration with the following observation:

“Shri Mohammed Ghouse Shukure Kamal has limited practice in the High Court.”

Collegium resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 25th March, 2019 for the elevation of Shri Mohammed Ghouse Shukure Kamal as Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

As regards Shri Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah Indiresh, his name has been sent back by the Department of Justice to the Collegium for reconsideration, inter alia, on the ground that he is one of the parties to disputes in High Court.

The basis on which the Government has sent back the name of Shri Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah Indiresh for reconsideration to the Collegium is apparently not tenable.

Collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 25th March, 2019 for elevation of Shri Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah Indiresh as Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

Having regard to acute shortage of Judges in Karnataka High Court it would be appropriate if the above proposal is processed expeditiously.


Supreme Court of India

[Notification dt. 03-10-2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

In view of decisions of the Supreme Court of India starting from First Judge’s case (S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87), Second Judge’s case: Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association v. Union of India  (1993) 4 SCC 441; Third Judge’s Case : Re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998- (1998) 7 SCC 739 and the latest judgment in case of National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) case (Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1), the Supreme Court Collegium controls the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in the country i.e. the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

WHEREAS the Collegium by its Resolution dated 10th May 2019 recommended the appointment of Justice A. A. Kureshi as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court;

WHEREAS the Government failed to act upon the Collegium’s recommendation for a period of four months;

WHEREAS the Government only acted on the said recommendation when compelled to do so in light of the proceedings instituted by the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association before the Supreme Court of India;

WHEREAS the Collegium’s recommendation was referred back to the Chief Justice of India vide two communications dated 23rd August 2019 and 27th August 2019, along with accompanying material;

WHEREAS the contents of these communications dated 23rd August 2019 and 27th August 2019 and the accompanying material whilst being placed before the three senior-most members of the Collegium have not been made available to the public;

AND WHEREAS, the Collegium thereafter published on 20th September 2019, its decision dated 5th September 2019 reconsidering the said recommendation. The Collegium modified the original recommendation of 10th May 2019, and recommended the appointment

Bombay Bar Association, therefore, resolves as follows:
This Association expresses serious concerns and strongly disapproves the Collegium’s manner of decision-making pertaining to the elevation of Justice A. A. Kureshi as Chief Justice of the Tripura High Court and the modification of earlier recommendation at the behest of the Government of India.

This Association believes that the modification of the Collegium’s recommendation in the case of Justice A. A. Kureshi, at the behest of the Government, undermines the independence of the judiciary and would have an adverse effect on the functioning of the judiciary as a whole and the ability of judges to discharge their constitutional functions without fear or favour. This Association views with grave apprehension the opaque procedure adopted by the Collegium relating to the elevation of Justice A. A. Kureshi as Chief Justice.

This Association believes that the disclosure of reasons behind the Collegium’s recommendations (and any modifications thereof) is necessary, and would subserve the interests of the judiciary and the administration of justice.
This Association further strongly disapproves the manner in which the Government has interfered with the Collegium’s decision-making in respect of the appointment of Justice A.A.Kureshi in particular and appointments, elevation or transfer of Judges in general thereby threatening the independence of the judiciary.


Bombay Bar Association

Hot Off The PressNews

STATEMENT

Certain reports relating to recommendations recently made by the Collegium regarding transfer of Chief Justices/Judges of the High Courts have appeared in the media.

As directed, it is stated that each of the recommendations for transfer was made for cogent reasons after complying with the required procedure in the interest of better administration of justice. Though it would not be in the interest of the institution to disclose the reasons for transfer, if found necessary, the Collegium will have no hesitation in disclosing the same.

Further each of the recommendations was made after full and complete deliberations and the same were unanimously agreed upon by the Collegium.


Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

As the office of the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court would be falling vacant shortly, consequent upon elevation of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Chief Justice of that High Court to the Supreme Court, in terms of a separate recommendation made by the Collegium today. Therefore, the appointment to that office is required to be made.

Justice S. Manikumar is the senior-most Judge from Madras High Court and has been functioning there since his elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Justice S. Manikumar is suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.


Collegium Resolution dt. 28-08-2019

Supreme Court of India

 

Bail Application
Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A Bobde and N. V. Ramana, JJ. recommends the appointment of Justice L. Narayana Swamy as the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court. 

Justice L. Narayana Swamy is the senior-most Judge from Karnataka High Court and has been functioning there since his elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Justice L. Narayana Swamy is suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

While making the above recommendation, the Collegium has also taken into consideration the fact that at present there is no Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court.


[Collegium resolution dt. 28-08-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

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

Appointments & TransfersNews

Against the sanctioned strength of 31 Judges, the Supreme Court of India is presently functioning with 27 Judges, leaving 04 clear vacancies.

The Collegium has discussed names of Chief Justices as well as senior puisne Judges of all High Courts, eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court. The Collegium is of the considered view that at present the following persons are more deserving and suitable in all respects than other Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts, for being appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court of India:

1. Mr Justice Aniruddha Bose,
Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court
(PHC: Calcutta) and

2. Mr Justice A.S. Bopanna,
Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court
(PHC: Karnataka)

The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde, N.V.Ramana, Arun Mishra and R.F. Nariman, JJ., therefore, recommends that Justices Aniruddha Bose and A.S. Bopanna be appointed as Judges in the Supreme Court of India.


Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

[Dated: 12-04-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., recommends the appointment of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of Delhi High Court to be the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat is the senior-most Judge from Delhi High Court and is functioning in that High Court since his elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium finds Justice S. Ravindra Bhat suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

While making the above recommendation, the Collegium is conscious of the fact that consequent upon the proposed appointment, there will be three Chief Justices from Delhi High Court, which has the special distinction of being the High Court for the national capital.


[Dated: 08-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Justice A.K. Mittal, Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court as Chief Justice in Meghalaya High Court.

Justice A.K. Mittal is the senior-most Judge from Punjab and Haryana High Court and is functioning in that High Court since his
elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium finds Mr Justice A.K. Mittal suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

While making the above recommendation the Collegium is conscious of the fact that consequent upon the proposed appointment there will be two Chief Justices from the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which serves two States and is the third largest High Court in the country, with a sanctioned strength of 85 Judges.


[Dated: 08-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to recommend that,

Justices (1) Hitesh Kumar Sarma, and (2) Mir Alfaz Ali, Additional Judges, be appointed as Permanent Judges of the Gauhati High Court against the existing vacancies.

Justices (1) Bimlendu Bhushan Mangalmurti, and (2) Anil Kumar Choudhary, Additional Judges, be appointed as Permanent Judges of the Jharkhand High Court against the existing vacancies.

Justices (1) Sharad Kumar Gupta, (2) Ram Prasanna Sharma, and (3) Arvind Singh Chandel, Additional Judges, be appointed as Permanent Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court against the existing vacancies.


[Dated: 08-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

 

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: After hearing Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Supreme Court and advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and N V Ramana, D Y Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ reserved the verdict in the matter where an RTI Activist had sought disclosure of information on appointment of judges, thereby bringing collegium under RTI.

For the past decade, the Supreme Court has refused to divulge information under RTI about the collegium’s confidential communications with the government. The collegium recommends judges for the High Courts and the apex court. The Supreme Court, after losing legal battles before the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the Delhi High Court, finally had to appeal to itself to protect the collegium’s workings.

AG’s submission

AG represented the Supreme Court’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), who is the authority tasked to respond to RTI queries related to the court. He argued before the Court that opening up the “highly-sensitive” correspondence of the Supreme Court’s collegium and its workings to the Right to Information(RTI) regime would make judges and the government “shy” and “destroy” judicial independence. He also asserted that if the RTI will be applied to the collegium, its member judges would not be able to sit back and have a free and frank discussion for fear that their confidential views may later come into the public domain.

He said,

“If reasons for his rejection come into public domain, will a judge be able to function independently? The entire future of the judge is ruined. The public, litigants lose their confidence in him. A judge whose integrity has been questioned and overlooked for appointment or elevation, is handicapped. He cannot go to the press to clear the air. Disclosure of highly sensitive communication under RTI will risk the very existence of the judicial way of functioning. So, the information should be kept confidential.”

Acknowledging that the right to know was part of the right to free speech, AG said the right to free speech was, however, subject to reasonable restrictions.

On the question of disclosure of personal assets of judges, AG argued even  under RTI was an “unwarranted intrusion” into their privacy.

Prashant Bhushan’s Submissions

Arguing on behalf of RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal, advocate Prashant Bhushan said that the Court has always been on forefront of right to information and transparency. He said that even in SP Gupta judgment, the 7-judge bench said that non disclosure of information would cause greater harm to public interest. He further argued that even in the absence of RTI Act, the Court has held that candidates contesting elections should disclose their criminal antecedents.

He said,

“You have asked centre to follow transparency in appointment in other wings of the Government. You can’t claim exemption from disclosure of information relating to appointment of judges.”

He also said that people are entitled to know about appointment of judges in a democracy. He told the Court,

“you have given judgments on transparency but deny information when it comes to you.”

He also said,

“An honest officer making a decision will not be cowed down by the fear that his reasoning or decision will become public tomorrow.”

When the bench said that a person may not want the information relating to his sexual orientation to be disclosed or the fact that he/she is suffering from schizophrenia, Bhushan agreed and said that Section 10 of RTI Act that provides exemption will be applicable in such cases.

On the issue of disclosure of assets of the judges, Bhushan said that  the RTI applicant is merely which judges submitted there asset details to CJI. 

(With inputs from The Hindu)

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment as Judges of Bombay High Court was made for 10 Advocates, namely:

1. Shri Avinash G. Gharote
2. Shri N.B. Suryawanshi
3. Shri Avinash S. Deshmukh
4. Ms. Manjari Dhanesh Shah
5. Shri J.R. Shah
6. Shri Madhav Jamdar
7. Shri Anil Kilor
8. Shri Abhay Kumar Ahuja
9. Shri Devidas Pangam
10. Shri Milind Narendra Jadhav

On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Avinash G. Gharote, (2) N.B. Suryawanshi, (3) Madhav Jamdar, (4) Anil Kilor, and (5) Milind Narendra Jadhav (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Bombay High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Avinash S. Deshmukh, (2) Ms. Manjari Dhanesh Shah, (3) J.R. Shah, and (4) Devidas Pangam, (mentioned at
Sl. Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 9 above) having regard to all relevant factors and the material placed in the file, the Collegium is of the considered view that the proposal for their elevation deserves to be remitted to the Bombay High Court.

As regards Shri Abhay Kumar Ahuja (mentioned at Sl. No.8 above), consideration of the proposal for his elevation is deferred for being taken up on receipt of certain information from the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Avinash G. Gharote, (2) N.B. Suryawanshi, (3) Madhav Jamdar, (4) Anil Kilor, and (5) Milind Narendra Jadhav, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Bombay High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

Collegium Resolutions

Dated: 25-03-2019

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following six Additional Judges of the Madras High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Mrs Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
2. Mr Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira
3. Mr Justice G.R. Swaminathan
4. Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose
5. Mr Justice M. Dhandapani and
6. Mr Justice P.D. Audikesavalu

The Committee constituted in terms of the Resolution dated 26th October, 2017 of the Supreme Court Collegium to assess the Judgments of the above-named recommendees, has submitted its report.

In view of the above, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ.,  resolved to recommend that (1) Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, Mr. Justices (2) A.D. Jagadish Chandira, (3) G.R. Swaminathan, (4) Abdul Quddhose, (5) M. Dhandapani, and (6) P.D. Audikesavalu, Additional Judges, be appointed as Permanent Judges of the Madras High Court.

Collegium Resolutions

[Dated: 11-03-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following six Additional Judges of the Patna High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Mr Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay
2. Mr Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
3. Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar
4. Mr Justice Madhuresh Prasad
5. Mr Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and
6. Mr Justice Prakash Chandra Jaiswal

The Committee constituted in terms of the Resolution dated 26th October, 2017 of the Supreme Court Collegium to assess the Judgments of the above-named recommendees, has submitted its report.

In view of the report, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S. A Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., resolved to recommend that Mr Justices (1) Anil Kumar Upadhyay, (2) Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, (3) Sanjay Kumar, (4) Madhuresh Prasad, (5) Mohit Kumar Shah, and (6) Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, Additional Judges, be appointed as Permanent Judges of the Patna High Court against the existing vacancies.

Collegium Resolutions

[Dated: 11-03-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana and Arun Mishra resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 10th January, 2019 for transfer of Justice T.B. Radhakrishnan, CJ of Telangana High Court to Calcutta High Court.

[Dated: 19-02-2019]

Supreme Court of India