As per the report of Hindustan Times in a significant evolution of the judicial appointment process, the Supreme Court collegium on Sunday conducted personal interactions with candidates being considered for high court judgeship. This step marks a departure from tradition, underscoring a proactive approach towards ensuring transparency and suitability in judicial appointments.
The three-member collegium, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and including Justices Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant, met with candidates at the Supreme Court. These individuals, comprising judicial officers and advocates, were being considered for high courts in Rajasthan, Allahabad, and Bombay. The objective was to assess their personalities and overall suitability for elevation through face-to-face conversations.
Apart from assessing the merit and suitability of recommended candidates for elevation to the high court, it was thought appropriate to meet them in person to get an overview of the person and assess their personality. This measure goes beyond the conventional vetting process, which traditionally includes evaluating judicial work, reviewing Intelligence Bureau (IB) reports, considering the views of the chief minister as forwarded by the governor, and incorporating observations from the Department of Justice.
The move is a revival of a practice last employed during the tenure of then-CJI Dipak Misra in 2018 but which had largely fallen out of favor. According to sources, some collegium members, including CJI Khanna, felt that personal interactions were indispensable for gaining a comprehensive understanding of prospective judges beyond their written records.
This renewed emphasis on personal interactions highlights the collegium’s commitment to enhancing the judicial appointment process. By engaging directly with candidates, the collegium aims to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary. Such steps could serve as a vital tool to uphold transparency, suitability, and integrity within the judicial system.
Observers have welcomed this change, noting that it reflects a more holistic approach to assessing candidates. The inclusion of such personal evaluations may set a precedent for future appointments, ensuring that the judiciary continues to evolve in response to contemporary challenges.
