High court deadlock puts judge retirement age on fall ballot

The judiciary has been involved in a dispute with the executive over the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges after a Constitution Bench struck down the NJAC law.

According to the aforementioned report, the dissenting judge has expressed his reluctance to attend meetings of the Supreme Court Collegium in the form of a three-page letter to the Chief Justice of India, Justice T.S. Thakur.

The meeting was expected to discuss the revised Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges but was deferred in the light of Justice Chelameswar’s letter.

The Judge in question, Justice Jasti Chelameswar- as per this report of The New Indian Express- is apparently of the view that as long as the collegium’s considerations are kept under wraps, there is no point in attending the concerned meetings.

But Justice Chelameshwar – fifth in the hierarchy among the collegium’s five members – stuck to his guns, saying he would not be part of any such meeting “unless there was a modicum of transparency”, the sources added.

The high courts of Andhra Pradesh/Telangana, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Sikkim and Tripura are without full time chief justices as on August 1, the data stated. He was the sole dissenting judge in the 5-judge bench SC order in October 2015 which struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, which sought to give the Union Government a say in judicial appointments.

Recently the Supreme Court, while hearing a PIL, had sent out a stern message to the government over non-execution of the collegium’s decision to transfer and appoint Chief Justices and judges in High Courts.

“Justice Chelameshwar felt that some favourite judges were securing transfers to places of their choice even when all the collegium members did not agree fully to the decision”, a source said.

Besides the Chief Justice, the collegium is now made up of Justices A.R. Dave, J.S. Khehar, Dipak Misra and Chelameshwar.

He was also party to another ruling which had asked the government to revise the MoP to make the process of appointing superior court judges.

He said there was “no accountability” and there were “cases where the collegium of this Court quickly retraced its steps” having rejected a name recommended by the High Court collegium, giving scope for speculation on what led to the quick change. Under the current system, the collegium recommendations are final and binding on the government.