Centre notifies adv Somasekhar Sundaresan’s appointment as HC judge

On February 16, 2022, the Supreme Court collegium led by chief justice of India Dhananjay Chandrachud recommended names of 10 advocates to be appointed as additional judges of the Bombay high court. Accordingly, all lawyers, except Somasekhar, have been appointed as additional judges of the high court

MUMBAI: The central government on Thursday issued a notification appointing city advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan as additional judge of the Bombay high court. The appointment comes around 21 months after his name was first recommended by the Supreme Court collegium in February 2022.

Centre notifies adv Somasekhar Sundaresan’s appointment as HC judge

“In exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble President of India, after consultation with Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint Shri Somasekhar Sundaresan, Advocate as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court. My best wishes to him,” Union minister of state for law and justice Arjun Ram Meghwal said in his post on X while declaring advocate Sundaresan’s appointment.

On February 16, 2022, the Supreme Court collegium led by chief justice of India Dhananjay Chandrachud recommended names of 10 advocates to be appointed as additional judges of the Bombay high court. Accordingly, all lawyers, except Somasekhar, have been appointed as additional judges of the high court.

On November 25, 2022, the central government sought reconsideration of the name of advocate Sundaresan on the ground that he had aired his views on social media on the issues pending before the courts.

The collegium in its meeting of January 18 this year, overruled the objection and reiterated the February 2022 recommendation.

“The views on social media attributed to the candidate (advocate Sundaresan), do not furnish any foundation to infer that he is biased,” the collegium said. “The issues on which opinions have been attributed to the candidate are in the public domain and have been extensively deliberated upon in the print and electronic media,” it added.

“The manner in which the candidate has expressed his views does not justify the inference that he is a “highly biased opinionated person” or that he has been “selectively critical on the social media on the important policies, initiatives and directions of the Government” (as indicated in the objections of Department of Justice) nor is there any material to

indicate that the expressions used by the candidate are suggestive of his links with any political party with strong ideological leanings,” the collegium said, reiterating that all citizens have the right to free speech and expression.