 |
|
The ongoing dispute between the Indian government and the Supreme Court over the appointment of high court chief justices has taken a new turn, with the Centre citing 'sensitive material' as the reason for delaying the implementation of the SC Collegium's recommendations. This revelation came during a hearing in the Supreme Court on a plea filed by advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal, who seeks a fixed time limit for the Centre to notify the appointment of judges recommended by the apex court collegium.
The Attorney General, R Venkatramani, informed the bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra that he had received certain sensitive inputs from the Union government. He asserted that disclosing these inputs in the public domain would be detrimental to both the institution and the judges involved. To ensure confidentiality, Venkatramani requested permission to submit the inputs and his suggestions in a sealed cover for perusal by the judges. The matter has been adjourned to September 20 for further hearing.
Singhal's plea argues that the lack of a fixed time period for notifying appointments allows the government to arbitrarily delay the process, undermining judicial independence, jeopardizing the constitutional and democratic order, and diminishing the court's authority. He proposed that if no objections are raised or appointments are not notified within a specified timeframe, the appointments should be considered automatically notified. The plea highlights the 'zone of twilight' that exists where there is no clear timeline for notifying the collegium's recommendations, creating a space for undue delays and potentially impacting the smooth functioning of the judiciary.
The latest development raises several critical questions regarding the transparency and efficiency of the judicial appointment process. The Centre's invocation of 'sensitive material' as a justification for delay raises concerns about potential misuse of the process and the ability of the government to exert undue influence on judicial appointments. The Supreme Court's decision to accept the Attorney General's request to submit sensitive information in a sealed cover highlights the need for a delicate balancing act between transparency and the protection of sensitive information in the context of judicial appointments.
The ongoing legal battle over the appointment of judges underscores the importance of a robust and transparent judicial appointment process. The Supreme Court's role in this process is critical to ensure that the judiciary remains independent and impartial, capable of fulfilling its constitutional obligations effectively. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the future of judicial appointments in India and the delicate balance between the judiciary and the executive.
Source: 'Sensitive' inputs delaying HC chief justice appointments: Centre to SC