After the objection of two judges, the CJI put a stay on his recommendation, preparations were made to promote four judges and bring them to the Supreme Court
The decision to bring a senior lawyer along with three High Court judges to the Supreme Court has now gone into cold storage. The Collegium has issued a written statement regarding the closure of the meeting of 30 September. It said that this decision has been taken after the objection of two judges of the Supreme Court.
However, the other side of the picture is that on October 8, the Union Law Minister had requested the CJI to suggest the name of his successor. Thereafter, the collegium cannot make any recommendations regarding appointments to the Supreme Court.
On September 30, CJI UU Lalit had issued a letter to all the members of the collegium to finalize the four names. These include Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court Ravi Shankar Jha, Chief Justice of Patna High Court Sanjay Karol, Chief Justice of Manipur High Court PV Sanjay Kumar and Advocate KV Viswanathan.
Such was the dispute in the Supreme Court
The meeting of the collegium was to be held on September 30 at 4.30 pm. But it could not happen because Justice DY Chandrachud could not attend. Justice Chandrachud held the hearing on 30 September till 1.15 pm. After that the CJI tried to get consent on the letter. On September 30, CJI Lalit wrote to the members of the collegium seeking their views on the proposals. But Justice Chandrachud and Justice S Abdul Nazeer objected to the method adopted in the CJI’s letter.
On 8 October, the Union Law Minister requested CJI Lalit to name his successor. Lalit’s term is till November 9. The new CJI is to take charge on the same day. Following a letter from the Union Law Minister, the collegium decided to call off the September 30 meeting. The collegium has five members.
Justice KM Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul gave their consent to the letter written by the CJI. However, Justice Chandrachud and Justice Nazir raised questions on the procedure itself. He said that it is wrong to take consent on the letter in the matter of appointment. At present, in the letter issued by all the five members of the collegium, only the meeting of 30 was rejected.
