The Hindu : National : Spell out stand on ‘violation’ in judges appointment: court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Apr 17, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Spell out stand on ‘violation’ in judges appointment: court

Legal Correspondent

Plea alleges violation of Memorandum of Procedure

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam to spell out the government’s stand on an application that alleged violation of procedure in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) on appointment of judges.

A Bench, comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and Lokeswar Singh, gave this direction while hearing a quo warranto petition filed by the former Law Minister, Shanthi Bhushan, and advocate Kamini Jaiswal questioning the appointment of Justice Ashok Kumar as a permanent judge of the Madras High Court. (He has now been shifted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court). In July 2007, the court, without issuing notice, asked the Union government to file an affidavit giving details of appointment of additional judges to various High Courts after 1999.

The government filed a brief affidavit, stating that from January 1, 1999 to July 31, 2007 “a total of 351 additional judges were appointed as permanent judges; that in these cases the Supreme Court collegium was not consulted.”

It also filed a copy of the MoP relating to judges appointment.

On Wednesday, Mr. Justice Pasayat told senior counsel Anil Divan, appearing for the petitioners, that over 350 cases had now come to light in which additional judges were made permanent judges on the recommendations of the Chief Justice of India (at relevant point of time). He said: “We cannot go into the appointment of over 350 judges. Let us not go into what happened in the past, we will see what can be done for future cases.”

Mr. Divan said: “In August 2005, Justice Ashok Kumar was not appointed permanent judge of the Madras High Court though six of his junior additional judges were appointed permanent judges. In 2007, he was appointed permanent judge by the Chief Justice of India disregarding the procedure set out in the MoU, viz. consultation with two seniormost judges of the Supreme Court.”

He said that though future cases were required to be considered, the case of Justice Ashok Kumar also should be gone into. He wanted the court to call for the records of Justice Ashok Kumar to ascertain whether there were any adverse remarks against him.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National