Chief Justice of India TS Thakur on Saturday said he will “sort out” with the senior Supreme Court judge, Justice J Chelameswar, who has refused to attend all future meetings of the collegium for selecting judges of higher judiciary.
The war within the apex judiciary has broken out at a time when the CJI decided to take on the Centre for its delay to clear the names of judges forwarded by the collegium he heads. Justice Cheleameswar, who is the fifth senior-most judge after the CJI, reportedly wrote a letter to him conveying his decision to withdraw from the collegium as he found its process to be Rsopaque' and names cleared by a majority without arriving at a consensus.
Facing a volley of questions to reporters on the sidelines of a convocation ceremony in the Capital, the CJI said, “We will sort out the matter.” He, however, did not indicate what steps he proposed to take in this matter. The collegium meeting scheduled to be held this week has been called off in view of Justice Chelameswar's protest. The proposed meeting was to decide on the amended Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) prepared by the Centre laying down critical changes in the criteria and process of appointing judges.
Sources indicated that the top four judges will meet to resolve the crisis in the collegium and propose a way out to persuade Justice Chelameswar to reconsider his decision.
According to media reports, in a strong-worded letter to the CJI , Justice Chelameswar expressed dissatisfaction over the lack of transparency in the collegium proceedings. He complained that objections raised by members are not even discussed and the minority view has to agree with the view of the majority.
Justice Chelameswar was also part of the five-judge constitution bench that decided the validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, meant to replace the collegium system. He was the lone judge who did not support the majority view restoring the collegium and striking down the NJAC. Justice Chelameswar in his dissent order said, “The need for transparency is more in the case of appointment process. Proceedings of the collegium were absolutely opaque and inaccessible both to public and history, barring occasional leaks.” He even criticized the lack of accountability in the collegium proceedings in his judgement, pointing out instances where the collegium of Supreme Court having rejected a particular name proposed by HC collegiums later recalled its decision and in both cases refusing to disclose what weighed with them to make such a “quick volteface”. “Such decisions may be justified in some cases and may not in other cases. There is no accountability in this regard,” he rued, pressing for reform of the collegium.