Amid the tiff between the Centre and judiciary that has held up appointments to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, a recent decision by the apex court has said that delay in deciding on judicial appointments adversely impacts the reputation of the judicial officers and members of the Bar.
Finding both the judiciary and executive equally culpable for causing delay, a two-judge bench recently observed that inordinate delay in decision-making tends to generate unnecessary debates speculating the cause of delay. This causes severe hardships to persons who are in the zone of consideration.
The decision comes in the backdrop of certain news reports which indicate that the Centre is not willing to approve a proposal forwarded by the collegium to appoint Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph as judge of Supreme Court. In the process, another name is stuck, that of senior lady lawyer Indu Malhotra who too has been considered fit by the collegium to be elevated as judge of the apex court.
While delay in judicial appointments impacts justice delivery system by reducing the available judicial workforce at any given point, the recent apex court verdict has viewed the entire issue from the perspective of the judge-nominee who face unwanted criticism and speculation without any reason forthcoming as to why their name is being withheld at the executive or judicial level.
The discussion came about while dealing with the appointment of two Rajasthan High Court judges - Justice Virendra Kumar Mathur and Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, who were appointed by a Presidential notification for a period till September 1, 2018 and July 2, 2018. Their appointment was challenged on the ground that on the date of their appointment, they had superannuated as District Judges with the Rajasthan State Judicial Service.
The Supreme Court maintained their appointments to be valid after analyzing that the process of their appointment was initiated by the High Court Chief Justice on February 18, 2016, recommended by SC Collegium on August 1, 2016, but got delayed for a year and three months by the executive which issued the warrant of their appointment on May 12, 2017.
The bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said, "In case of judicial officers of subordinate judiciary, this process of consuming so much time adversely affects their tenure." Most judicial officers are brought to HC at the sunset of their tenure, giving them hardly two to three years.
Even in case of lawyers elevated as judges, the bench noted, "Members of the bar whose names are recommended for elevation to HC undergo hardships of a different kind."
The bench felt it was "unjust" to hold the fate of such nominees in limbo for an indefinite period giving rise to discussions surrounding delay. To avoid such situations, the Court felt the solution lies in evolving a time-bound appointment process.