SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 1
Descargar para leer sin conexión
Date:01/08/2007 URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2007/08/01/stories/2007080162680100.htm


New Delhi

“Chief Justice need not consult collegium”

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is not bound to consult two senior most
judges in the collegium while recommending an additional judge for appointment as a
permanent judge of a High Court, say sources in the Supreme Court.

Once the due process is complied with in the initial appointment, there will be no need
for further consultation as the CJI can independently make recommendations.

Responding to allegations in a quo warranto petition, entertained by the apex court,
questioning the appointment of Justice Ashok Kumar as a permanent judge of the Madras
High Court, the sources familiar with the appointment process say, “the due procedure
was followed .”

On the contention that as per the 1998 Supreme Court judgment, consultation with the
collegium was necessary not only for the initial appointment but also for making an
additional judge permanent, the sources say: “The judgment refers to the consultation
process only in the appointment of a permanent judge and not in regularisation of an
additional judge made after following the due procedure.” Every High Court has
vacancies in the posts of permanent judge and additional judge and all initial
appointments are made after complying with the consultation process.

Since 1990, about 600 additional judges have been appointed to High Courts and in all
these cases at the time of initial appointment, the process of consultation was complied
with. However, when they were made permanent judges, invariably the CJIs
independently recommended their appointment. Justice Ashok Kumar was first appointed
additional judge in 2003 and at that time the due process of consultation was complied
with. In 2005, when his case came up for being made permanent, the then CJI (R.C.
Lahoti) for some reasons recommended his extension as an exception to the general rule.

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Más contenido relacionado

Más de JudicialReform13

Completely collaspsed system
Completely collaspsed systemCompletely collaspsed system
Completely collaspsed systemJudicialReform13
 
Complaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhalla
Complaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhallaComplaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhalla
Complaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhallaJudicialReform13
 
Cnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rs
Cnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rsCnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rs
Cnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rsJudicialReform13
 
Cji rules out_declaration_of_assests
Cji rules out_declaration_of_assestsCji rules out_declaration_of_assests
Cji rules out_declaration_of_assestsJudicialReform13
 
Cji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toi
Cji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toiCji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toi
Cji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toiJudicialReform13
 
Cjar letter to_vice_president
Cjar letter to_vice_presidentCjar letter to_vice_president
Cjar letter to_vice_presidentJudicialReform13
 
Cjar complaint against_rebello
Cjar complaint against_rebelloCjar complaint against_rebello
Cjar complaint against_rebelloJudicialReform13
 
Cic judgement appointments_1
Cic judgement appointments_1Cic judgement appointments_1
Cic judgement appointments_1JudicialReform13
 
Cic judgement appointments
Cic judgement appointmentsCic judgement appointments
Cic judgement appointmentsJudicialReform13
 
Centre moves to_impreach_toi
Centre moves to_impreach_toiCentre moves to_impreach_toi
Centre moves to_impreach_toiJudicialReform13
 

Más de JudicialReform13 (20)

Completely collaspsed system
Completely collaspsed systemCompletely collaspsed system
Completely collaspsed system
 
Complaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhalla
Complaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhallaComplaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhalla
Complaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhalla
 
Coja resolution 22.9.01
Coja resolution 22.9.01Coja resolution 22.9.01
Coja resolution 22.9.01
 
Coja resolution 13.12.02
Coja resolution 13.12.02Coja resolution 13.12.02
Coja resolution 13.12.02
 
Cnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rs
Cnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rsCnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rs
Cnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rs
 
Cjirefuted
CjirefutedCjirefuted
Cjirefuted
 
Cji silence
Cji silenceCji silence
Cji silence
 
Cji rules out_declaration_of_assests
Cji rules out_declaration_of_assestsCji rules out_declaration_of_assests
Cji rules out_declaration_of_assests
 
Cji recomends impreach_ie
Cji recomends impreach_ieCji recomends impreach_ie
Cji recomends impreach_ie
 
Cji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toi
Cji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toiCji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toi
Cji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toi
 
Cjar letter to_vice_president
Cjar letter to_vice_presidentCjar letter to_vice_president
Cjar letter to_vice_president
 
Cjar complaint against_rebello
Cjar complaint against_rebelloCjar complaint against_rebello
Cjar complaint against_rebello
 
Cjar brochure
Cjar brochureCjar brochure
Cjar brochure
 
Cja comments on bill
Cja   comments on billCja   comments on bill
Cja comments on bill
 
Cic decision hc_rtifees_2
Cic decision hc_rtifees_2Cic decision hc_rtifees_2
Cic decision hc_rtifees_2
 
Cic decision hc_rtifees_
Cic decision hc_rtifees_Cic decision hc_rtifees_
Cic decision hc_rtifees_
 
Cic judgement appointments_1
Cic judgement appointments_1Cic judgement appointments_1
Cic judgement appointments_1
 
Cic judgement appointments
Cic judgement appointmentsCic judgement appointments
Cic judgement appointments
 
Changing trends pil
Changing trends pilChanging trends pil
Changing trends pil
 
Centre moves to_impreach_toi
Centre moves to_impreach_toiCentre moves to_impreach_toi
Centre moves to_impreach_toi
 

Chief justice need_not_consult_collegium

  • 1. Date:01/08/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/08/01/stories/2007080162680100.htm New Delhi “Chief Justice need not consult collegium” Legal Correspondent New Delhi: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is not bound to consult two senior most judges in the collegium while recommending an additional judge for appointment as a permanent judge of a High Court, say sources in the Supreme Court. Once the due process is complied with in the initial appointment, there will be no need for further consultation as the CJI can independently make recommendations. Responding to allegations in a quo warranto petition, entertained by the apex court, questioning the appointment of Justice Ashok Kumar as a permanent judge of the Madras High Court, the sources familiar with the appointment process say, “the due procedure was followed .” On the contention that as per the 1998 Supreme Court judgment, consultation with the collegium was necessary not only for the initial appointment but also for making an additional judge permanent, the sources say: “The judgment refers to the consultation process only in the appointment of a permanent judge and not in regularisation of an additional judge made after following the due procedure.” Every High Court has vacancies in the posts of permanent judge and additional judge and all initial appointments are made after complying with the consultation process. Since 1990, about 600 additional judges have been appointed to High Courts and in all these cases at the time of initial appointment, the process of consultation was complied with. However, when they were made permanent judges, invariably the CJIs independently recommended their appointment. Justice Ashok Kumar was first appointed additional judge in 2003 and at that time the due process of consultation was complied with. In 2005, when his case came up for being made permanent, the then CJI (R.C. Lahoti) for some reasons recommended his extension as an exception to the general rule. © Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu