Pending reference, don’t appoint judges: Centre

NEW DELHI, Aug 8: The Union Government has said that any directions for appointing judges while the Presidential Reference on judicial ap...

NEW DELHI, Aug 8: The Union Government has said that any directions for appointing judges while the Presidential Reference on judicial appointment and transfers is pending will “lead to judicial embarrassment” as the Presidential Reference may lay down fresh guidelines for appointment which would put a question mark on the interim appointments.

Last Monday, a two-judge bench of Justices S Saghir Ahmad and K T Thomas had directed the Government to file a reply on an interlocutory application seeking to advance the hearing of the writ petition urging the Supreme Court to direct the Government to appoint and transfer judges on the recommendations of the Chief Justice of India.

The Government’s reply is expected to be filed in the next few days.In its reply to the application which had also sought directions for appointment of 11 judges to Punjab and Haryana High Court though the government has largely limited itself to the question of advancement of hearing, it has questioned the bonafide of theapplicant.

Story continues below this ad

The government has asked the applicant to “reveal the source” on basis of which he has contended that the names of 11 judges to Punjab and Haryana High Court have been “finally cleared and recommended by the Chief Justice of India” as the contention implies that the applicant was privy to confidential information and files and is therefore not a bonafide applicant.The reply also points out that though the original writ petition had a more general plea on appointment and transfer of judges, the application narrows the plea to only 11 judges without giving any reasons.

The government will also seek to impress upon the court that the applicant is wrong in stating that the issues covered in the Presidential Reference exclude appointment of HC judges since both the first and last clause of the reference refer to appointments per se and the application is not in conformity with these clauses.

Some other issues covered in the reply are:

The application amounts to judicial impropriety asit seeks to scuttle the reference.

A plea for advancement of hearing is made only when there is a pressing reason and the applicant has failed to mention as to what has necessitated the application for early hearing.

Meanwhile, yet another intervention application filed by the Committee on Judicial Accountability on the ongoing controversy on judicial appointments and transfers will come up for hearing on Monday before the two-judge bench of Justice Ahmad and Justice Thomas.