The Supreme Court has once criticised the Centre for delaying the appointment of judges in the High Courts despite the recommendations made by the collegium. “You cannot bring the entire institution (of judiciary) to a grinding halt,” said the apex court while hearing the matter highlighting the long pendency of cases.
“Courts rooms are locked down. Do you want to lock down the judiciary,” a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said, adding “you cannot bring the entire institution to a grinding halt.”
Appearing for the central government, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi said that non-finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedures (MoP) was one of the issues and assured the bench that more progress will be seen in the near future on the appointment of judges.
The court, however, observed that the appointment process “cannot be stalled” due to non-finalisation of the MoP. It firmly criticised the tardy progress in processing files pertaining to judges’ appointment and even warned that it may summon the Secretaries of the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice to ascertain the factual position.
“There should not be any deadlock. You have committed to process the files for appointment of judges without finalisation of the MoP. Finalisation of MoP has nothing to do with the appointment process in the judiciary,” the bench, which also included Justices DY Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao, said.
Referring to the deficiency of judges in various high courts, it said that in Karnataka high court, several court rooms were locked because there were no judges.
The court fixed the matter for further hearing on November 11.
The Centre had on September 14 told the apex court that there was “no blame game” or “logjam” in appointments and transfer of judges for higher judiciary but blamed the High Courts for “pretty much delaying” in starting the process.
Earlier, the apex court had said it would not tolerate “logjam in judges’ appointment” and would intervene to “fasten accountability as the justice delivery system is collapsing”.
The bench had said that if the government had reservation about any name, it could always come back to the Collegium.
(With inputs from the PTI)