Chief Justice of India J. S. Verma retires on January 18, 1998. The appointment of the next seniormost judge of the Supreme Court, Justice M. M. Punchhi, as the next Chief Justice of India should have been made by the Union Government on December 1, 1997. This is the binding legal requirement of the clearcut majority of five out of the nine judges who decided in 1993 the second Judges case entitled Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs Union of India. Justice J. S. Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal, G. N. Ray, A. S. Anand and S. P. Bharucha constituted the majority of five who had declared that ``the process of appointment must be initiated well in time to ensure its completion at least one month prior to the date of an anticipated vacancy; and the appointment should be duly announced soon thereafter to avoid any speculation or uncertainty. This schedule should be followed strictly and invariably in the appointment of the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Justice of India.'' The caretaker United Front government has not made the announcement so far.The majority of five judges had also stated that apart from the 1973 and 1977 departures made by the then Union Government, appointments to the office of the Chief Justice of India have by convention been of the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court ``considered fit to hold the office; and the proposal is initiated in advance by the Chief Justice of India.'' Hence the Chief Justice of India before sending this proposal has to make sure that the seniormost judge is ``considered fit to hold the office.'' In terms of the judgment he must initiate the proposal at least twelve weeks in advance of his retirement. This is so because the judgment requires that a six weeks time be given to the Union Government to respond to the proposal after its receipt from the Chief Justice of India. In case the Union Government disagrees then it must convey this to the Chief Justice of India within the six-week period. According to the five-judge majority the requirement under Article 124(2) of the Constitution that the Union Government consult ``such of the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts as the President may consider necessary'', becomes operative only ``if there be any doubt about the fitness of the seniormost judge to hold office.'' Another six weeks are given for this.The seven-point memorandum against Justice Punchhi was delivered to Chief Justice J. S. Verma and the then President S. D. Sharma in June this year. The memorandum had been given by senior advocates of the Supreme Court and other advocates under the organisational name of the Committee of Judicial Accountability. It fell to the lot of the succeeding President K. R. Narayanan to take a decision. He sent the memorandum to the United Front Government for necessary action. The result of the necessary action in terms of the time schedule laid down by the nine-judge bench judgment must have been conveyed to the Chief Justice of India at least within six weeks of his having initiated the proposal to fill up the vacancy on his retirement on January 18 next year. Otherwise the Union Government would have risked contempt of court proceedings.Meanwhile Chief Justice Verma was bound by the May 7, 1997 unanimous decision of the full court of the Supreme Court which adopted the ``Restatement of the Values of Judicial Life.'' This decision required an investigation by a judges committee into the complaint lodged with Chief Justice Verma by the Committee on Judicial Accountability. The unanimous decision was a well considered one being based on a draft prepared by a five-judge committee. The draft had been finalised after taking into account the 1993 ``Resentment'' and the suggestions of the high courts on it. The five-judge committee having three Supreme Court judges and the Chief Justices of Allahabad and Himachal Pradesh had done this work pursuant to the resolution of the 1996 All India Chief Justices Conference. The internal investigation report would also be with Chief Justice Verma given the time schedule laid down in the nine-judge bench decision.Armed with two sets of reports the ball is clearly in Chief Justice Verma's court unless the Union Government has expressed any hesitation. The nine-judge bench judgment states that ``non-appointment of anyone recommended by the Chief Justice of India on the ground of unsuitability must be for good reasons, disclosed to the Chief Justice of India to enable him to reconsider and withdraw his recommendation on those considerations. If the Chief Justice of India does not find it necessary to withdraw his recommendation even thereafter, but the other judges of the Supreme Court who have been consulted in the matter are of the view that it ought to be withdrawn, the non-appointment of that person, for reasons to be recorded, may be permissible in the public interest. If the non-appointment in a rare case, on this ground, turns out to be a mistake, that mistake in the ultimate public interest is less harmful than a wrong appointment.'' But if after due consideration of the reasons the Chief Justice of India reiterates his decision with the unanimous agreement of the judges of the Supreme Court consulted in the matter, with reasons for not withdrawing the recommendation, then that appointment as a matter of healthy convention ought to be made. The country can look up only to its Chief Justice and President for a suitable Chief Justice of India.
