NEW DELHI: The Union government on Friday told the Supreme Court that it will adhere to the timeline and expedite the judges’ appointment process.
The top court, however, said sending back reiterated names by the Centre is a matter of concern. It also wondered if third parties were influencing the decisions with regard to transfer of judges.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka emphasised the government should not be too concerned about the political views of lawyers picked up by the Collegium for appointment as judges as they are trained to work independently.
Citing example of Justice V Krishna Iyer, the bench said, "When we become judges we do our duty irrespective of political considerations at all." Justice Iyer was an active politician of left parties before his appointment as a judge.
"You are the one to advise the government. There are people of different points of views, the court must reflect those views. When you are appointed, you are de hors of political affiliation. The Bar is different ball game and judgeship is different," the bench told Attorney General R Venkataramani.
The court was hearing a contempt plea filed by the Advocates Association Bengaluru through advocate Amit Pai.
The plea claimed that the Centre has not complied with the directions of the apex court in connection with the time schedule set for the appointment of judges.
At the start, Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, submitted that some recent recommendations sent by the high courts are being processed, probably 44 recommendations (name of judges) sent by the Collegium will be cleared either by Saturday or this weekend.
He said all efforts are being made to conform to timelines fixed by the apex court for clearing the names recommended by Collegium for appointment of judges to the high courts and the apex court.
He said out of 104 recommendations, made by the high courts, 44 would be cleared.
The bench also specifically asked the AG about the five names which were recommended by the Collegium in December last year for the elevation to the Supreme Court.
To this, Venkatramani said the court may defer this for a little while.
"I have some inputs. I don't think I should probably discuss it here," he said.
During the hearing, the court also asked why the government was sitting over transfer of judges, though it has a very limited role as keeping them pending sends a very wrong signal.
"It is unacceptable to the Collegium," the bench said.
The bench also pointed out that 22 names ( for the appointment as judges) were returned by the Centre recently, and some of those names were earlier reiterated by the Collegium.
It further added that some names were reiterated by the Collegium three times, despite which the Centre returned them.
“Sending back reiterated names by Centre is a matter of concern. Government might have apprehensions, but names cannot be kept on hold without sending us some comments in the fear that we will reiterate,” the bench said.
It once again said that once the Collegium reiterates then there should not be a problem in clearing the appointment.
The court also pointed out that delay by the central government in clearing collegium recommendations leads to candidates withdrawing their consent for judgeship or not giving consent.
The top court fixed the matter for further hearing in February.
