NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said the government is within its rights to send back a judge's name for reconsideration and in such an eventuality, the Collegium will deal with it in accordance with judicial precedent and the Constitution.
A bench of CJI
Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud made the observation while rejecting a petition filed by senior advocate Indira Jaisingh seeking stay on the appointment of jurist
Indu Malhotra as an apex court judge.
The bench said lawyers filing a petition to seek stay of appointment of a member of the bar is unimaginable, unthinkable, inconceivable and, to say the least, never heard of.
"Constitutional propriety demands that warrant of
appointment of Indu Malhotra
+ be implemented," the bench said.
Jaisingh sought the stay on the grounds that the government has stalled Uttarakahand Chief Justice
K M Joseph's elevation as a judge of the Supreme Court despite the collegium's recommendation. The Centre asked the collegium to reconsider its decision on recommending Justice Joseph, a day after clearing the appointment of senior advocate Indu Malhotra as a judge of the top court.
Dismissing Jaisingh's petition, the SC said the government is within its right to send back a name for reconsideration and when such a reference comes "we (Collegium) will deal with it in accordance with SC judgments and Constitution."
Jaising said more than 100 lawyers have signed the petition to question government's decision to cherry pick names recommendeded for appointment as SC Judges.
Jaising said, "We all know why government is stalling Justice K M Joseph's appointment. It is because he gave a judgment quashing imposition of president rule in Uttarakhand."
The senior lawyer was referring to when the Uttarakhand high court bench headed by Chief Justice K M Joseph in 2016 had quashed the imposition of President rule in the state and had revived the
Congress government headed by Harish Rawat, dealing a blow to the
Modi government at the Centre. Later, the Congress lost the Assembly election.
The bench further said that if 35 names are recommended by the Collegium for appointment to a HC, should all appointments be stalled just because government sends back five names and clears 30 names?
However, SC said if it is cherry picking, then it could be a serious issue which requires to be dealt with in a serious way.
The court refused urgent listing of the petition, which is still in the process of filing, and said it would be listed for hearing in due course.
Meanwhile, over 100 lawyers have signed a resolution seeking urgent convening of Supreme Court Bar Association meeting to discuss the issues arising from the controversy over judge appointments.
