Transparency in the appointment/rejection of Supreme Court judges has been long overdue. So the decision of the Supreme Court Collegium comprising of top five judges to place on its website the reasons for appointment or rejection of judges may help bruce up its sagging image.
A resolution passed by the Collegium in this regard says: "That the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the material which is considered by the Collegium is different. The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system."
As a beginning of this new process, the SC has posted online reasons for its recommendations for judicial appointments to the Madras HC and Kerala HCs.
Despite the Supreme Court taking a leap forward in making its recommendation for appointment and rejection of a candidate, the critical question remains whether there will be any forward movement in framing the memorandum of procedure (MoP) which remains a contentious issue. After the five-judge Supreme Court bench struck down the NJAC in 2015, the MoP has been stuck between the Centre and the Collegium with no clear process of appointment in place.
Recently, the resignation of Justice Jayant Patel, former acting Chief Justice and then judge in the Karnataka High Court, earned the Collegium reprobation from lawyers and the public. Though Justice Patel did not state any reason, it is widely believed that his resignation was triggered by the Collegium's failure to appoint him a Chief Justice in any High Court despite seniority.
Anti-Hindutva Twitterati has been spreading the rumor that Justice Patel was denied his due because he, as a Gujarat HC judge, had ordered a CBI probe into the encounter of Ishrat Jahan after which the agency filed a charge sheet in the case naming top officials of the Intelligence Bureau.
While pathological secularists can't be stopped from spreading hatred and canards, the SC collegium decision to make its appointment/rejection decisions transparent may help inform the public of facts.
Tags:
Supre Court, Supre Court Judges, Judges Appointment, Government of India, High Court Bench, High Court chief Justice, Madras High Court, Kerala High Court, memorandum of procedure, Anti-Hindutva Twitterati, Gujarat HC judge, CBI, Intelligence Bureau, Ishrat Jahan
SC takes a leap for transparency in appointments
By IndianMandarins - 2017-10-07 12:52:53
Transparency in the appointment/rejection of Supreme Court judges has been long overdue. So the decision of the Supreme Court Collegium comprising of top five judges to place on its website the reasons for appointment or rejection of judges may help bruce up its sagging image.
A resolution passed by the Collegium in this regard says: "That the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the material which is considered by the Collegium is different. The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system."
As a beginning of this new process, the SC has posted online reasons for its recommendations for judicial appointments to the Madras HC and Kerala HCs.
Despite the Supreme Court taking a leap forward in making its recommendation for appointment and rejection of a candidate, the critical question remains whether there will be any forward movement in framing the memorandum of procedure (MoP) which remains a contentious issue. After the five-judge Supreme Court bench struck down the NJAC in 2015, the MoP has been stuck between the Centre and the Collegium with no clear process of appointment in place.
Recently, the resignation of Justice Jayant Patel, former acting Chief Justice and then judge in the Karnataka High Court, earned the Collegium reprobation from lawyers and the public. Though Justice Patel did not state any reason, it is widely believed that his resignation was triggered by the Collegium's failure to appoint him a Chief Justice in any High Court despite seniority.
Anti-Hindutva Twitterati has been spreading the rumor that Justice Patel was denied his due because he, as a Gujarat HC judge, had ordered a CBI probe into the encounter of Ishrat Jahan after which the agency filed a charge sheet in the case naming top officials of the Intelligence Bureau.
While pathological secularists can't be stopped from spreading hatred and canards, the SC collegium decision to make its appointment/rejection decisions transparent may help inform the public of facts.
Tags:
Supre Court, Supre Court Judges, Judges Appointment, Government of India, High Court Bench, High Court chief Justice, Madras High Court, Kerala High Court, memorandum of procedure, Anti-Hindutva Twitterati, Gujarat HC judge, CBI, Intelligence Bureau, Ishrat Jahan
