+
 
For the best experience, open
m.thewire.in
on your mobile browser or Download our App.
You are reading an older article which was published on
Mar 23, 2023

'Matter of Grave Concern': SC Collegium On Centre Holding Back Recommended Names

A resolution passed by the collegium on March 21 made critical remarks on the Union government, especially for withholding the appointment of advocate John Sathyan as a Madras high court judge.
Advocate John Sathyan. Photo: By arrangement

New Delhi: Calling it a “matter of grave concern”, the Supreme Court collegium on Tuesday, March 21, passed a resolution taking objection to the Union government’s decision to selectively approve names recommended for appointment as judges.

The collegium – comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph – particularly made critical remarks on the government’s decision to withhold the appointment of advocate John Sathyan as a judge of the Madras high court.

Sathyan’s name was first recommended by the collegium in February 2022, and again on January 17 this year. While some proposals recommended by the collegium after Sathyan were notified, his appointment has been held. The collegium noted that this would disturb seniority.

While recommending four new judicial officers for the appointment of judges at the Madras high court, the Supreme Court collegium expressed concern over not approving the appointment of names that had been recommended earlier. In the latest list of recommendations, on March 21, Collegium recommended district judges R. Shaktivel, P. Dhanabal, Chinnasamy Kumarappan, and K. Rajasekhar to be appointed as high court judges.

“The Collegium is of the considered view that necessary action for the issuance of a notification for the elevation of persons who have been recommended earlier in point of time should be taken at the earliest including the name of Shri R. John Sathyan which has been reiterated by this Collegium on January 17, 2023.

The names which have been recommended earlier in point of time including the reiterated names ought not to be withheld or overlooked as this disturbs their seniority whereas those recommended later steal march on them. Loss of seniority of candidates recommended earlier in point of time has been noted by the Collegium and is a matter of grave concern,” the resolution said.

Also Read: The Things We Learnt When the SC Collegium Finally Became ‘Transparent’

While holding back the appointment of Sathyan, the Union government went ahead with the controversial appointment of Victoria Gowri to the Madras high court. Many advocates moved the Supreme Court against her appointment, alleging her links with a political party – the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – making her unfit for the position. In the case of Sathyan, the Union government had returned his file pointing out that he had earlier shared on social media an article published on an online platform that allegedly made adverse comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Although the Collegium underlined that his act of sharing an article does not in any way prevent him from being elevated to the position of the high court, the government still continues to withhold his appointment.

Reiterating the recommendation, the collegium had specifically said Sathyan should be given precedence over other names which have been recommended for the first time.

Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
facebook twitter