The Centre has pledged to the Supreme Court that it will soon provide details regarding the collegium’s recommendations for appointing chief justices across various high courts in India. This commitment was articulated by Attorney General R Venkataramani before a bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud during discussions about postponing a hearing on a pertinent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initially scheduled for Friday.
In requesting the adjournment, Venkataramani stated, “I will be providing some details about the collegium’s recommendations. Please list the plea (which is listed on Friday) after a week.” This conversation unfolded in a session that also saw participation from Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, who agreed to address the adjournment request on Friday itself.
Simultaneously, the Supreme Court was informed about a contempt petition filed by the Jharkhand government, which accused the Centre of failing to appoint the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court as recommended by the Collegium. The government, led by Hemant Soren of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), has pointedly criticized the Centre for not endorsing the Collegium’s choice of Justice M S Ramachandra Rao as the chief justice.
Previously, on September 13, Venkataramani disclosed to the same bench that the delay in approving the collegium’s recommendations was due to the receipt of “sensitive material” by the central government. He expressed concerns about the sensitivity of this information, suggesting that its public disclosure might compromise the integrity of the institution and the judges involved. “I would like to place the inputs and my suggestions in a sealed cover for perusal by the judges,” he added.
The ongoing legal discourse also includes a PIL by advocate Harsh Vibhore Singhal, scheduled for a hearing on September 20. Singhal’s plea calls for the establishment of a definitive timeline for the Centre to formalize the appointment of judges as recommended by the Supreme Court collegium, aiming to eliminate delays that he claims undermine judicial independence and the broader democratic framework.
