Retired Supreme Court justice Madan Lokur said on Wednesday he was disappointed that the decision taken by the collegium on December 12 on the appointment of two judges to the top court wasn’t “followed and put out,” stoking a recent row that had all but died out.
Justice Lokur, who retired on December 30, took part in the collegium meeting that approved the names of Delhi HC chief justice Rajender Menon and chief justice of the Rajasthan high court Pardeep Nandrajog for elevation to the apex court.
The December 12 collegium decision was abruptly replaced by a new January 10 decision by the collegium, which recommended two new names—Karnataka HC chief justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Delhi HC judge Sanjiv Khanna—for appointment to the Supreme Court. The January 10 resolution took many in the legal fraternity by surprise as it recalled the earlier resolution of December 12 without assigning a reason. Former Delhi HC judge Kailash Gambhir wrote a letter to the President describing the reversal as marking a “black day”, and former chief justices of the Supreme Court called for greater transparency in the collegium’s decision-making process.
Some reports suggest CJI Ranjan Gogoi reconsidered the December 12 resolution because he was angry over the way the details of the minutes were leaked. Hindustan Times reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed people, that the decision may have also been prompted, at least in justice Khanna’s case, by collegium’s desire to ensure smooth succession planning. Justice Khanna is likely to become the chief justice in November 2024, after justice YV Chandrachud, by which time he would have had close to five years of experience in the top court. However, it isn’t clear why Justice Maheshwari ‘s name was recommended. At an interaction with lawyers in Delhi, Justice Lokur said, “I was part of a collegium meeting of December 12 where names of judges were discussed for elevation, but what happened between December 12 and January 10, I do not know. Once a resolution is passed we expect it to be followed but in this case it wasn’t.” When asked about the press conference held by four judges, including him, last year, during which they aired their grievances over how the then chief justice was running the court, Lokur said, “It was worth holding the press conference. I don’t know what we achieved, but we did achieve something and openness in the system is one of them. And I believe things have changed after the press conference.” Lokur also emphasised the need to refine the collegium system and bring in changes in the way judges are appointed, but defended the process itself.
{{/usCountry}}Some reports suggest CJI Ranjan Gogoi reconsidered the December 12 resolution because he was angry over the way the details of the minutes were leaked. Hindustan Times reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed people, that the decision may have also been prompted, at least in justice Khanna’s case, by collegium’s desire to ensure smooth succession planning. Justice Khanna is likely to become the chief justice in November 2024, after justice YV Chandrachud, by which time he would have had close to five years of experience in the top court. However, it isn’t clear why Justice Maheshwari ‘s name was recommended. At an interaction with lawyers in Delhi, Justice Lokur said, “I was part of a collegium meeting of December 12 where names of judges were discussed for elevation, but what happened between December 12 and January 10, I do not know. Once a resolution is passed we expect it to be followed but in this case it wasn’t.” When asked about the press conference held by four judges, including him, last year, during which they aired their grievances over how the then chief justice was running the court, Lokur said, “It was worth holding the press conference. I don’t know what we achieved, but we did achieve something and openness in the system is one of them. And I believe things have changed after the press conference.” Lokur also emphasised the need to refine the collegium system and bring in changes in the way judges are appointed, but defended the process itself.
{{/usCountry}}In 2015, the SC ruled against the NDA government’s National Judicial Appointments Commission law, which sought to change the way judges to the top court are appointed. Defending the collegium system of appointing judges, Lokur said, “The view taken in NJAC judgment is correct. Collegium system is the best but it also needs tweaking and what needs to be tweaked is something that has to be discussed. The tweaking should not be a small incremental change but more than that. ” On delays by the government in appointment of judges by not acting on recommendations from the collegium, Lokur asserted, “the new Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) must have a mechanism by which timelines are laid down and moreover adhered or consent must be deemed if the timelines are crossed. Nobody can sit on the file and that includes the government or the judiciary.”