As members of the five-member judge selection body have opposed the CJI’s attempt to seek approval of four names by circulating a written proposal, the CJI-led collegium, led by UU Lalit, may not be able to recommend any names to the Union government for filling the four vacant Supreme Court Judges’ posts. The same rule that prevented his predecessor, Justice NV Ramana, from receiving approval from the Collegium to fill two open SC Judge positions was now preventing Justice Lalit from making any recommendations.
As CJI Lalit leaves on November 8, the same regulation would prevent him from calling Collegium sessions after October 8 to discuss and come to a consensus on candidates to recommend to the government for filling the SC vacancies. It just so happens that the SC doesn’t reopen until October 10—the earliest date on which the Collegium may convene and at which point the “less than one month” requirement would apply. Additionally, the CJI’s efforts to circulate the names of the four candidates—Justices DY Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Abdul Nazir, and KM Joseph—among the other four members of the Collegium have run into stiff opposition from two of them. The four candidates are three sitting chief justices of the High Court and one senior advocate who practises in the Supreme Court.
Two Collegium judges responded to the CJI’s letter proposing the four names by denouncing the attempt in writing, stating that “appointment to the high constitutional office and as judges of the highest court should never be done through circulation” and that the only method for filling SC vacancies should be discussions leading to agreement.
The Collegium meeting was postponed on September 29 due to a lengthy list of cases before one judge, who stayed until 9.15 p.m. to finish hearing the cases. On September 30, the CJI sent a written proposal to the Collegium members asking for their approval to fill four open SC positions.
The Collegium members had discussed 11 candidates at their meeting last week. The Collegium members received 103 of the CJI’s judgments written on Thursday to assess their jurisprudence. Given the overwhelming strain of reading the numerous cases that were listed before them on Friday, the majority of members were unable to read through the enormous number of judgments.
Additionally, some Collegium members expressed concerns about appointing a senior advocate at this time, when up to 11 HCs are not represented in the SC.
Some of them also believed that elevating a senior lawyer would reduce the possibilities for many senior HC justices, who have more than ten years of experience in constitutional courts, to obtain the highest position in the judiciary. If promoted, the senior advocate in question would have become CJI in 2030.
Only one candidate, Justice Dipankar Datta, has been suggested by the Collegium headed by CJI Lalit, who served a brief 74-day term in office.
