Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Surya Kant, J.
How long should the appointment of High Court judges take? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, noting the significant vacancies in High Courts. The Court established specific timelines for various stages of the appointment process to ensure timely justice. This case highlights the judiciary’s concern about the high number of vacancies in the High Courts and the need for a more efficient appointment process.
Case Background
The Supreme Court was addressing the issue of delays in the appointment of judges to the High Courts. The Court noted a significant number of vacancies and the slow pace of filling these positions. The Court observed that many High Courts were operating with less than half of their sanctioned strength. The Court was concerned about the impact of these vacancies on the administration of justice.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 10.03.2017 | Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) finalized by the Supreme Court Collegium, which is identical to the MoP of 1999. |
| 20.04.2021 | Supreme Court issues directions for timelines in the appointment of High Court Judges. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the issue of vacancies in the High Courts. The Court had previously dealt with the matter of appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224A of the Constitution of India in WP(C) No.1236/2019. The Court had also discussed the process of appointment under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India in that matter. The Court noted that despite a sanctioned strength of 1080 judges, only 664 judges had been appointed, leaving 416 vacancies. The Attorney General had stated that 196 recommendations were under process, leaving 220 recommendations yet to be received.
Legal Framework
The Court referred to the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) finalized by the Supreme Court Collegium on 10.03.2017, which is identical to the MoP of 1999. The relevant timelines prescribed in the MoP are:
- States may take not more than six weeks to send their views. (Cl. 21 of MoP)
- The Central Government can presume no objection of the State Government if their views are not received within six weeks. (Cl. 21 of MoP)
- No timeline is prescribed for the Central Government to forward recommendations.
- The Chief Justice of India to send recommendations/advice to the Law Minister within four weeks. (Cl. 24 of MoP)
- The Law Minister to put up the proposal to the Prime Minister within three weeks for advice of the President. (Cl. 24.1 of MoP)
Arguments
The Attorney General emphasized that the trigger for filling vacancies is the recommendations made by the Chief Justices of the High Courts. He also noted that the matter rests with the Government at two stages: first, when the Ministry processes the names, and second, after the Supreme Court Collegium makes its recommendations.
It was argued that setting timelines would contradict the observations in the Third Judges case, which stated that judicial review of appointments is limited to lack of consultation or eligibility issues. The Court rejected this contention, clarifying that the observations in the Third Judges case pertained to judicial review of a particular appointment and not to delays in the appointment process.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Attorney General’s Submission |
|
| Objection to Timelines |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this order. The primary concern was the delay in the appointment of High Court judges and the need to establish timelines for the process.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Delay in Appointment of High Court Judges | The Court established specific timelines for various stages of the appointment process to ensure timely justice. |
Authorities
The Court referred to the following authorities:
- Third Judges case (1998) 7 SCC (Special Reference 1 of 1998) – Supreme Court of India: The Court distinguished the observations in this case, clarifying that they pertained to judicial review of a particular appointment and not to delays in the appointment process.
- Second Judges case – Supreme Court of India: The Court referred to this case in the context of the judicial review of appointments, noting the limited scope of review.
| Authority | How the Authority was Considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| Third Judges case (1998) 7 SCC (Special Reference 1 of 1998) – Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; the Court clarified that the observations in this case pertained to judicial review of a particular appointment and not to delays in the appointment process. |
| Second Judges case – Supreme Court of India | Referred to in the context of the judicial review of appointments, noting the limited scope of review. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Attorney General’s Submission: The trigger for filling vacancies is the recommendations from High Court Chief Justices. | Acknowledged; the Court emphasized the importance of timely recommendations from High Court Chief Justices. |
| Attorney General’s Submission: The Government is involved at two stages: processing by the Ministry and review by the Supreme Court Collegium. | Acknowledged; the Court set timelines for both stages. |
| Objection to Timelines: Setting timelines would contradict observations in the Third Judges case regarding limited judicial review of appointments. | Rejected; the Court clarified that the observations in the Third Judges case pertained to judicial review of a particular appointment and not to delays in the appointment process. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed the Authority |
|---|---|
| Third Judges case (1998) 7 SCC (Special Reference 1 of 1998) – Supreme Court of India | The Court clarified that the observations in this case pertained to judicial review of a particular appointment and not to delays in the appointment process. |
| Second Judges case – Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case in the context of the judicial review of appointments, noting the limited scope of review. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily concerned with the significant number of vacancies in the High Courts and the delays in the appointment process. The Court emphasized the need for a time-bound schedule to ensure timely justice. The Court also noted the importance of collaboration between the judiciary and the government in this process.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Concern over High Court Vacancies | 40% |
| Need for Timely Appointments | 30% |
| Importance of Collaboration | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the need to address the systemic delays in the appointment process, which was impacting the functioning of the High Courts. The Court acknowledged the collaborative nature of the process and emphasized the need for promptness from all stakeholders.
The Court considered the argument that setting timelines would contradict the observations in the Third Judges case but rejected it, clarifying that the observations pertained to judicial review of a particular appointment and not to delays in the appointment process. The Court emphasized that the need for timely appointments outweighed any concern about judicial overreach.
The Court’s decision was based on the need to ensure the smooth functioning of the High Courts and to uphold the principle of timely justice. The Court’s reasoning was clear and focused on the practical implications of the delays in the appointment process.
The Court stated, “We are conscious that the aforesaid exercise is collaborative in nature and we would expect promptness in this process to facilitate the larger cause of dispensation of timely justice.”
The Court also stated, “We cannot but note the importance of the Chief Justices of the High Courts making recommendations in time.”
The Court further noted, “The vacancies are known and the norms permit making recommendations up to six months in advance.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has set specific timelines for the appointment of High Court judges.
- The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of recommendation of the High Court Collegium.
- The Central Government should forward the file to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of views from the State Government and the report/input from the IB.
- If the Supreme Court Collegium reiterates the recommendation unanimously, the appointment should be processed within 3 to 4 weeks.
- The Chief Justices of the High Courts are expected to make recommendations in time, even if not made at one go.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following timelines to be followed in addition to the existing timelines in the MoP:
- The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report/inputs within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of recommendation of the High Court Collegium, to the Central Government.
- The Central Government should forward the file(s)/recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of views from the State Government and the report/input from the IB.
- If the Supreme Court Collegium reiterates the recommendation unanimously, such appointment should be processed and appointment should be made within 3 to 4 weeks.
Development of Law
The judgment establishes a time-bound schedule for the appointment of High Court judges, which is a significant step towards ensuring timely justice. This is a new development in the law as it sets specific timelines for the process, which were not previously mandated.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a crucial step towards addressing the issue of vacancies in the High Courts. By setting specific timelines for the appointment process, the Court aims to ensure that these positions are filled in a timely manner. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the High Courts can function effectively.