2024-09-22 05:19:23
New Delhi : There is no fixed time limit for the government to take a decision on the recommendation of the Supreme Court or High Court Collegium. That is why it is also seen that sometimes governments do not take any decision on the Collegium’s recommendations for a long time. But now a plea has been made in the Supreme Court for contempt proceedings against the Central Government on this issue. The plea has been made by none other than a state government. The Hemant Soren government of Jharkhand. It alleges that the Central Government is deliberately delaying the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.
The Jharkhand government has approached the Supreme Court against the central government. According to a report by our colleague Times of India, the Hemant Soren government has alleged that the central government is deliberately delaying the implementation of the Supreme Court Collegium’s July 11 proposal to appoint Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court.
The state government has said in its petition that the High Court has been without a Chief Justice for two months since Justice B.R. Sarangi retired on July 19. The petition further said that the Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud had sent a recommendation to fill this vacancy. The Collegium had recommended to the central government that the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court be transferred as the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court.
The Jharkhand government says that despite more than two months having passed, the central government is ‘deliberately’ not taking any action on the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium. This situation shows that the central government is disregarding the decisions of the Supreme Court.
The Jharkhand government says that the Centre’s deliberate inaction on the collegium’s proposal is also a violation of Article 216 of the Constitution. This article states, ‘Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges…’. Constitutional courts have the power to initiate contempt of court proceedings against any person who deliberately disobeys or ignores the judicial orders of such courts.
However, it remains to be seen whether the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium can be given the same status as judicial orders. If this happens, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act may be applicable if the Central Government disagrees or delays in implementation.
While insisting on speedy implementation of the Collegium’s recommendations, the Supreme Court had once warned the Centre of contempt of court proceedings. Then Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who has now retired, had warned the Centre that contempt of court proceedings could be initiated against it. However, he did not take any action on this.
The Supreme Court had decided through three separate decisions in the 1990s that the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts would be done only through the Collegium. But the Supreme Court did not set any deadline for when the Collegium’s recommendation should be approved. Apart from this, the central government cannot reject the decision of the Collegium, but it can definitely seek reconsideration by raising those issues which it feels have not come to the notice of the Collegium or have not been given sufficient consideration.
CJI Chandrachud informed Attorney General R. Venkataramani on Thursday about Jharkhand filing a contempt petition against the Centre. The CJI gave this information when the Attorney General was requesting that the hearing on Friday on the PIL demanding timely implementation of the Collegium’s recommendations be postponed. Petitioner Harsh Vihor Singh has demanded timely implementation of the Collegium’s recommendations regarding the appointment and transfer of High Court judges.
The Attorney General told the bench of CJI and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra that he will give details on the appointment of Chief Justices in the High Courts next week. The Supreme Court asked the Attorney General to request for adjournment afresh on Friday as the matter has already been listed.
On July 11, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended Justice Rao’s transfer from Himachal Pradesh High Court to Jharkhand, besides sending a proposal to the Centre for appointment of Chief Justices in seven high courts. However, the Centre had requested the Collegium to reconsider some of the recommendations, citing some ‘sensitive material’.
Based on this material, the Collegium had on September 17 made changes to its proposals on the appointment of chief justices of three high courts—Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.