The Supreme Court today agreed to examine the issue of delay in finalisation of Memorandum of Procedure (MOP) for appointments of judges in higher judiciary on judicial side and sought the response from the Attorney General.
The top court said even though there was no time limit fixed for finalisation of the MOP, the issue cannot linger on for indefinite period.
A bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and U U Lalit said "there should be no further delay in finalisation of MOP in larger public interest".
"We need to consider the prayer that there should be no further delay in finalisation of MOP in larger public interest. Even though no time-limit was fixed by this Court for finalisation of the MOP, the issue cannot linger on for indefinite period," the bench said.
It said the order of apex court which stipulated that there should be MOP for appointments in higher judiciary is of 2015 and over one year and ten months have already passed.
The top court, which was hearing a plea filed by advocate R P Luthra, rejected the prayer challenging the appointment of judges in apex court and high courts on the ground that MOP was not finalised as per the verdict of the court.
It appointed senior advocate K V Vishwanathan as amicus curiae (friend of court) to assist in the matter and issued notice to Attorney General K K Venugopal.
It posted the matter for further hearing on November 14.
Referring to the verdict in the contempt case of former Kolkata High Court judge Justice C S Karnan, the bench said that observations were then made with regard to the need to revisit the process of appointments and set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment against conduct of an erring judge.
It agreed with Luthra's submission that the MOP must provide for a mechanism so that appointments of regular Chief Justices of High Courts are not unduly delayed.
"No doubt the process is to be initiated by the Collegium and proposal is expected to be so initiated before accrual of the vacancies so as to ensure that appointments take place by the time vacancies arise and that the arrangement of acting Chief Justices does not exceed one month, as stipulated in the MOP currently in force," the bench said.
There are difference of opinion over terms of MOP for appointments in the higher judiciary between Supreme Court collegium and the executive.
In October 2015, a constitution bench headed by former CJI J S Khehar had struck down the NJAC Act passed by Parliament and directed the Centre to frame a new MoP in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
After holding the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 and the NJAC Act, 2014, as unconstitutional and void, the apex court in its separate order had decided to consider the incorporation of additional appropriate measures, if any, for an improved working of the collegium system.
Striking a dissent note, Justice J Chelameswar, who was part of the five-judge Constitution bench which heard the NJAC case, had said that the collegium system for the appointment of judges is "opaque" and needs "transparency".
He had said that "primacy of the judiciary" in the appointment of judges is a basic feature of the Constitution and "is empirically flawed.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
