Want govt nominee on committee for shortlisting judges: Law Minister to CJI

New Delhi, January 16

More than seven years after a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court asked the Centre to finalise Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) in consultation with the Chief Justice of India through incorporation of additional appropriate measures to streamline the working of the Collegium system, the issue continues to hang fire.

Collegium to take final decision

• Sources said the Law Minister has sought the setting up of a “search and evaluation committee” with representation from the Central and state governments in the selection of judges for the SC and the HCs, respectively.
• The panel will suggest names to the Collegium, which will take the final decision

Rijiju justifies letter to CJI

The contents of the letter to the CJI are in conformity with the directions of the SC Constitution Bench…. The Constitution is supreme, nobody is above it. Kiren Rijiju, law minister

Poison pill for judiciary: Congress

The Collegium needs reform. But what this government wants is complete subservience. Its remedy is a poison pill for the judiciary. Jairam Ramesh

Now, the Centre has proposed the setting up of a “search-cum-evaluation committee” to streamline the functioning of the Collegium system, sources said, adding that the panel will shortlist and suggest names for appointment of judges to the Collegium, which will take the final decision. Law Minister Kiren Rijiju has written to CJI DY Chandrachud suggesting inclusion of a government nominee in the panel that will provide proper inputs on “suitable candidates” to the Collegium, they said. Such a panel will include a nominee of the Centre and that of a state for shortlisting of names for appointment of High Court judges and the Centre’s representative alone when it comes to suggesting names for appointment of a High Court Chief Justice or a Supreme Court judge, they said, citing the January 6, 2023, letter of the Law Minister.

The setting up ‘search-cum-evaluation committee’ was intended to streamline judicial appointments without disturbing the Collegium system which has been in place for the last three decades, they said.

The Supreme Court Collegium includes the CJI and two senior-most judges for the appointment of HC judges and the CJI plus four senior-most judges for the appointment of SC judges while the High Court Collegium consists of the Chief Justice plus two senior-most judges of the HC concerned.

While the ping-pong over the MoP continued, the Centre and the Supreme Court have been engaged in slugfest over the appointment of judges with Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Rijiju openly attacking the Collegium system of appointing judges.

A Bench led by Justice SK Kaul recently asserted that “the Collegium system of appointment of judges is the law of the land and comments against it are not well taken”. It had suggested that Attorney General R Venkataramani should advise the government on the correct legal position on the issue.

Later, the Vice-President said, “I declined to entertain the Attorney General on this point. I cannot be a party to emasculation of the powers of the legislature.”

While striking down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, a five-judge Constitution Bench had on October 16, 2015, decided to consider the incorporation of additional appropriate measures, if any, for an improved working of the “Collegium system”.

After considering the issue at length, it said on December 16, 2015, “The Government of India may finalise the existing Memorandum of Procedure by supplementing it in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice of India will take a decision based on the unanimous view of the Collegium comprising the four senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court.”

The Government and the CJI shall take into consideration factors such as eligibility criteria, transparency in the appointment process, establishment of a Secretariat for each High Court and the Supreme Court and prescribe its functions, duties and responsibilities; and an appropriate mechanism and procedure for dealing with complaints against anyone who is being considered for appointment as a Judge, it had said.

The MoP may provide for any other matter considered appropriate for ensuring transparency and accountability, including interaction with the recommendee(s) by the Collegium of the Supreme Court, without sacrificing the confidentiality of the appointment process, the top court had further noted.