NEW DELHI: In a first, Jharkhand government has moved Supreme Court seeking contempt of court action against the Centre for its "deliberate and wilful" delay in implementing the SC collegium 's July 11 resolution recommending appointment of Justice M S Ramachandra Rao as chief justice of the state, reported.
In its petition, the Hemant Soren govt said the state was without a chief justice for two months, since the retirement of Justice B R Sarangi on July 19. It said the SC's five-member collegium led by CJI D Y Chandrachud, anticipating the vacancy, had recommended to the Centre to transfer the Himachal Pradesh HC CJ to Jharkhand HC as its CJ.
It said despite the passage of more than two months, the Union govt was deliberately sitting over the SC collegium's recommendation, a situation that displayed the Centre's complete disregard for the highest court's decisions.
Centre's deliberate inaction violates Article 216 : Jharkhand to SC
Jharkhand govt said Centre's deliberate inaction on the collegium resolution was also in violation of Article 216 of the Constitution, which says, "Every high court shall consist of a chief justice and such other judges..."
Constitutional courts are empowered to initiate contempt of court proceedings against anyone who wilfully disobeys or ignores judicial orders of such courts. However, it is to be seen whether SC collegium resolutions can be put on the same pedestal as judicial orders to attract provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act if the Union govt disagrees or delays implementation.
Seeking to push swift implementation of the collegium's recommendations, retired SC judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had warned Centre of contempt of court proceedings but refrained from acting on the caution.
SC, through three judgments in the 1990s, made the collegium the sole arbiter in appointments of judges to the apex court and HCs but it has not spelt out the timeframe within which the recommendations are to be implemented. Moreover, while the Centre cannot refuse to comply with the collegium's decision, it can seek a review by flagging issues which it feels escaped the attention of the body or did not get adequate consideration.
Information about Jharkhand moving a contempt petition against Centre was shared by CJI Chandrachud with attorney general R Venkataramani when the top law officer was requesting adjournment of Friday's hearing on a PIL by Harsh Vibhor Singh, who sought time-bound implementation of the collegium's recommendations for appointment & transfer of HC judges.
The AG told the bench of CJI and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra he would provide details on appointment of CJs to HCs next week. SC asked the AG to renew the request for adjournment on Friday as the case was already listed.
Apart from recommending transfer of Justice Rao from Himachal Pradesh high court to Jharkhand, the SC collegium on July 11 had passed a resolution for appointment of chief justices to seven HCs. However, the Centre cited certain "sensitive material" to request the collegium to reconsider certain recommendations.
Based on the material, the collegium on Sept 17 had changed its proposals on appointment of CJs to three HCs - Himachal Pradesh (after the retirement of Justice Rajiv Shakdher), Madhya Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
In its petition, the Hemant Soren govt said the state was without a chief justice for two months, since the retirement of Justice B R Sarangi on July 19. It said the SC's five-member collegium led by CJI D Y Chandrachud, anticipating the vacancy, had recommended to the Centre to transfer the Himachal Pradesh HC CJ to Jharkhand HC as its CJ.
It said despite the passage of more than two months, the Union govt was deliberately sitting over the SC collegium's recommendation, a situation that displayed the Centre's complete disregard for the highest court's decisions.
Centre's deliberate inaction violates Article 216 : Jharkhand to SC
Jharkhand govt said Centre's deliberate inaction on the collegium resolution was also in violation of Article 216 of the Constitution, which says, "Every high court shall consist of a chief justice and such other judges..."
Constitutional courts are empowered to initiate contempt of court proceedings against anyone who wilfully disobeys or ignores judicial orders of such courts. However, it is to be seen whether SC collegium resolutions can be put on the same pedestal as judicial orders to attract provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act if the Union govt disagrees or delays implementation.
Seeking to push swift implementation of the collegium's recommendations, retired SC judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had warned Centre of contempt of court proceedings but refrained from acting on the caution.
SC, through three judgments in the 1990s, made the collegium the sole arbiter in appointments of judges to the apex court and HCs but it has not spelt out the timeframe within which the recommendations are to be implemented. Moreover, while the Centre cannot refuse to comply with the collegium's decision, it can seek a review by flagging issues which it feels escaped the attention of the body or did not get adequate consideration.
Information about Jharkhand moving a contempt petition against Centre was shared by CJI Chandrachud with attorney general R Venkataramani when the top law officer was requesting adjournment of Friday's hearing on a PIL by Harsh Vibhor Singh, who sought time-bound implementation of the collegium's recommendations for appointment & transfer of HC judges.
The AG told the bench of CJI and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra he would provide details on appointment of CJs to HCs next week. SC asked the AG to renew the request for adjournment on Friday as the case was already listed.
Apart from recommending transfer of Justice Rao from Himachal Pradesh high court to Jharkhand, the SC collegium on July 11 had passed a resolution for appointment of chief justices to seven HCs. However, the Centre cited certain "sensitive material" to request the collegium to reconsider certain recommendations.
Based on the material, the collegium on Sept 17 had changed its proposals on appointment of CJs to three HCs - Himachal Pradesh (after the retirement of Justice Rajiv Shakdher), Madhya Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
You may also like
Trump supporter Shalabh Kumar hopes to influence Indian American voters with $1 million campaign
Prince Andrew's £30m Royal Lodge 'crumbling with black mould' as King 'axes allowance'
Taylor Swift makes voting plea after US Eras Tour finale: "Your last chance"
Prince William has 'unlucky' title that sons George or Louis could inherit
"Canadian govt responsible for attack on temple": JD(U) leader KC Tyagi
