Summary
Addressing delays in High Court judicial appointments, the Court prescribed additional processing timelines and urged timely, continuing recommendations by Chief Justices. Intelligence Bureau inputs should arrive within four to six weeks, government forwarding should desirably take eight to twelve weeks after receipt of State views and intelligence inputs, and unanimously reiterated recommendations should result in appointment within three to four weeks. The proceeding was closed with these directions.
Issues
- Whether appointment-process delays could be addressed by judicial timelines notwithstanding limits on review of individual appointments.
- What timelines should guide recommendations, intelligence inputs, government processing and unanimous reiterations.
Held
- Chief Justices should recommend candidates as early as possible, with vacancies known in advance and norms permitting recommendations six months ahead. Pending earlier recommendations do not prevent initiation of further recommendations. (¶ 3-5)
- The objection based on the Third Judges case was rejected: restrictions on reviewing particular appointments did not preclude consideration of delay in the appointment process. (¶ 9-10)
- In addition to existing memorandum timelines, the Intelligence Bureau should furnish inputs within four to six weeks of a High Court collegium recommendation. It was desirable for the Central Government to forward files within eight to twelve weeks after receiving State views and intelligence inputs. (¶¶ 9, 11(i)-(ii))
- Government should proceed promptly to appointment, or return a recommendation with specific recorded suitability or public-interest reservations within the same period. If the Supreme Court collegium unanimously reiterates after considering those inputs, appointment should be processed and made within three to four weeks. (¶ 11(iii))
- The process is collaborative and requires prompt action to support timely justice. The order concerned appointment processing and did not decide the underlying commercial dispute. (¶¶ 1-2, 12-13)
Result
Proceeding closed with directions and additional timelines to facilitate timely High Court judicial appointments.