Leishmania Major: There has to be workable trust between government and judiciary, says SC

NEW DELHI: Even as the tussle between the Centre and the judiciary over appointment of judges to the higher judiciary continues unabated, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said the government sitting over the collegium‘s recommendations and selectively picking and choosing names and appointing them was “troubling” the judiciary, and emphasised that there has to be “workable trust” between the two.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, which had last month lashed out at the government for not notifying all the recommendations of the collegium, expressed concern over the Centre’s selective approach towards names endorsed by the collegium, called it “troublesome” and reiterated that it affected the seniority of judges. The bench also flagged the Centre not clearing names which were reiterated by the collegium as well as its recommendation for transfer of HC judges. The court appreciated the Centre for clearing some names and appointing them HC judges but asked why 14 names were left out.

Though the bench refrained from passing directions as attorney general R Venkataramani sought 10 days’ time, it asked him to show some progress on the next date of hearing.

“We have expressed our concern to the AG over lack of progress since the last date. Pendency of transfer matters is an issue of great concern as it is being selectively done. The AG submits that the issue is being taken up by him with the government. Once these people are appointed as judges, where they perform their judicial duties should not be of concern to the government. We hope that a situation does not come where this court or the collegium has to take any unpalatable decision,” the bench said

“There are 14 recommendations pending with the government to which there have been no response. In recommendations made recently, selective appointments have been made. This is also a matter of concern. If some appointments are made, while others are not, the seniority is disturbed. This is hardly conducive to persuading successful lawyers to join the bench,” the court added.
The bench admitted that the tussle between the two organs of the state had been going on since the 1950s but emphasised that there has to be “workable trust” between the two for smooth functioning of the system. The bench also said the Centre should not reject the names of those lawyers who had some political connection with opposition parties, having served as law officers in opposition-governed states. It said a lawyer should not be disqualified on the basis of clients he appeared for and defended in court proceedings. It said only those lawyers should not be recommended who have deep-rooted connections and are actively associated with a political party. It also said the Centre should not block the appointment of judges just because names cleared by the government were not approved by the collegium.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar and Prashant Bhushan told the bench that the Centre has been reluctant to implement the collegium’s recommendations for appointment of judges despite having been given a long rope, and urged the bench to pass an order. The said the delay in appointment of judges and the pick and choose policy of the Centre was undermining the independence of judiciary and the court should now “crack the whip”.