SC Collegium reiterates decide picks, says Centre cannot repeatedly ship again proposals

Express News Service

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court’s Collegium on Thursday despatched again 5 names to the centre for its reconsideration amid the continued tussle between the Judiciary and the chief over the appointment of judges.

The 5 names of advocates which have been despatched again by the SC collegium for elevation as HC judges are Saurab Kirpal, son of former CJI BN Kirpal, Amit Banerjee, Sakya Sen, Somasekhar Sundareshanand R John Sathyan.

Apart from the reiteration of names of advocates to be elevated as judges of excessive courts, the Collegium in its assembly held on January 17 beneficial the elevation of 17 advocates and three judicial officers as judges of the excessive courts of Karnataka, Allahabad and Madras.

With an try for the Indian judiciary to get its first homosexual decide, the SC collegium has but once more beneficial the identify of Advocate Saurabh Kirpal for elevation as a decide of Delhi HC. Kirpal’s identify was beneficial unanimously by the collegium of Delhi HC in 2017 and has been pending for over 5 years. Kirpal’s elevation to the bench is being objected to by the centre because of the Swiss nationality of his accomplice in addition to his intimate relationship and openness about his sexual orientation. 

Rejecting the centre’s objection to his sexuality, the SC collegium in its decision has mentioned, “The proven fact that Mr Saurabh Kirpal has been open about his orientation is a matter which matches to his credit score. As a potential candidate for judgeship, he has not been surreptitious about his orientation.”

“In view of the constitutionally acknowledged rights which the candidate espouses, it could be manifestly opposite to the constitutional ideas laid down by the Supreme Court to reject his candidature on that floor.”

The decision additional says that he possesses competence, integrity and mind, and his appointment would add worth to the Bench of the Delhi HC, and supply inclusion and variety.

With regards to the centre’s objection to his accomplice’s nationality, the decision says, “There is no reason to pre-suppose that the partner of the candidate, who is a Swiss National, would be inimically disposed to our country since the country of his origin is a friendly nation. Many persons in high positions including present and past holders of constitutional offices have and have had spouses who are foreign Nationals. Hence, as a matter of principle, there can be no objection to the candidature of Shri Saurabh Kirpal on the ground that his partner is a foreign National.”

ALSO READ | Government sending again names reiterated by Collegium matter of concern: Supreme Court

While reiterating the names of Advocates Amit Banerjee and Sakya Sen, whose names have been first accredited by SC collegium in 2019 for elevation as Calcutta HC decide however have been despatched again, the collegium on Wednesday mentioned, “It was not open to the Department to repeatedly send back the same proposal which has been reiterated by SC Collegium after duly considering the objections of the Government.”

Advocate Banerjee is the son of former apex courtroom decide Justice U C Banerjee, who headed a fee that in 2006 dominated out conspiracy angle within the 2002 Sabarmati Express hearth tragedy at Godhra that killed 58 ‘kar sevaks’. The Godhra incident had triggered widespread communal riots in Gujarat.

Advocate Sen is the son of Justice Shyamal Sen, who was elevated as a everlasting decide of the Calcutta High Court in February 1986 and later turned the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court. Justice Sen additionally served because the Governor of West Bengal from May 1999 to December 1999. Justice (retd) Sen had headed an inquiry fee which probed the multi-crore Saradha Group ponzi rip-off.

The Collegium remarked that views on social media attributed to the candidate, don’t furnish any basis to deduce that he’s biased. The physique in its decision additional reiterated the advice of Advocate Somasekhar Sundareshan as decide of Bombay HC. His identify was beneath reconsideration by the centre for airing his views on social media on a number of issues that are the subject material of consideration earlier than the courts.

The Collegium in its decision mentioned “it is of the view that the views on social media attributed to the candidate, do not furnish any foundation to infer that he is biased. The issues on which opinions have been attributed to the candidate are in the public domain and have been extensively deliberated upon in the print and electronic media.”

“The manner in which the candidate has expressed his views does not justify the inference that he is a ‘highly biased opinionated person’ or that he has been ‘selectively critical on the social media on the important policies, initiatives and directions of the Government’ (as indicated in the objections of Department of Justice) nor is there any material to indicate that the expressions used by the candidate are suggestive of his links with any political party with strong ideological leanings.”

“All citizens have the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office so long as the person proposed for judgeship is a person of competence, merit and integrity,” the collegium decision opined.

ALSO READ | ‘Collegium law of the land, has to be followed’: SC raps Centre over NJAC 

Additionally, the SC collegium in its assembly held on January 17 additionally reiterated the advice of Advocate R John Sathyan as Madras HC decide whose file was returned by the centre as he had shared a information article which was crucial of PM Narendra Modi. His file was additionally returned since he had shared a publish concerning an alleged suicide of a medical aspirant in 2017.

The collegium, in its decision, referred to an Intelligence Bureau report which revealed the advocate loved private {and professional} picture and nothing antagonistic had come to note when it got here to his integrity. The physique additionally added that John Sathyan didn’t have any political leanings. “The adverse comments of the IB extracted above in respect of posts made by him i.e. sharing an article published in ‘The Quint’ and another post regarding committing of suicide by a medical aspirant candidate in 2017 will not impinge on the suitability, character or integrity of Shri Sathyan.”

The collegium additionally beneficial for giving priority to him within the matter of appointment over three different names (Judicial officers Periyasamy Vadamalai, Ramachandran Kalaimathi and Ok. Govindarajan Thilakavadi) which the collegium additional beneficial for elevation as Madras HC judges. 

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court’s Collegium on Thursday despatched again 5 names to the centre for its reconsideration amid the continued tussle between the Judiciary and the chief over the appointment of judges.

The 5 names of advocates which have been despatched again by the SC collegium for elevation as HC judges are Saurab Kirpal, son of former CJI BN Kirpal, Amit Banerjee, Sakya Sen, Somasekhar Sundareshanand R John Sathyan.

Apart from the reiteration of names of advocates to be elevated as judges of excessive courts, the Collegium in its assembly held on January 17 beneficial the elevation of 17 advocates and three judicial officers as judges of the excessive courts of Karnataka, Allahabad and Madras.

With an try for the Indian judiciary to get its first homosexual decide, the SC collegium has but once more beneficial the identify of Advocate Saurabh Kirpal for elevation as a decide of Delhi HC. Kirpal’s identify was beneficial unanimously by the collegium of Delhi HC in 2017 and has been pending for over 5 years. Kirpal’s elevation to the bench is being objected to by the centre because of the Swiss nationality of his accomplice in addition to his intimate relationship and openness about his sexual orientation. 

Rejecting the centre’s objection to his sexuality, the SC collegium in its decision has mentioned, “The proven fact that Mr Saurabh Kirpal has been open about his orientation is a matter which matches to his credit score. As a potential candidate for judgeship, he has not been surreptitious about his orientation.”

“In view of the constitutionally acknowledged rights which the candidate espouses, it could be manifestly opposite to the constitutional ideas laid down by the Supreme Court to reject his candidature on that floor.”

The decision additional says that he possesses competence, integrity and mind, and his appointment would add worth to the Bench of the Delhi HC, and supply inclusion and variety.

With regards to the centre’s objection to his accomplice’s nationality, the decision says, “There is no reason to pre-suppose that the partner of the candidate, who is a Swiss National, would be inimically disposed to our country since the country of his origin is a friendly nation. Many persons in high positions including present and past holders of constitutional offices have and have had spouses who are foreign Nationals. Hence, as a matter of principle, there can be no objection to the candidature of Shri Saurabh Kirpal on the ground that his partner is a foreign National.”

ALSO READ | Government sending again names reiterated by Collegium matter of concern: Supreme Court

While reiterating the names of Advocates Amit Banerjee and Sakya Sen, whose names have been first accredited by SC collegium in 2019 for elevation as Calcutta HC decide however have been despatched again, the collegium on Wednesday mentioned, “It was not open to the Department to repeatedly send back the same proposal which has been reiterated by SC Collegium after duly considering the objections of the Government.”

Advocate Banerjee is the son of former apex courtroom decide Justice U C Banerjee, who headed a fee that in 2006 dominated out conspiracy angle within the 2002 Sabarmati Express hearth tragedy at Godhra that killed 58 ‘kar sevaks’. The Godhra incident had triggered widespread communal riots in Gujarat.

Advocate Sen is the son of Justice Shyamal Sen, who was elevated as a everlasting decide of the Calcutta High Court in February 1986 and later turned the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court. Justice Sen additionally served because the Governor of West Bengal from May 1999 to December 1999. Justice (retd) Sen had headed an inquiry fee which probed the multi-crore Saradha Group ponzi rip-off.

The Collegium remarked that views on social media attributed to the candidate, don’t furnish any basis to deduce that he’s biased. The physique in its decision additional reiterated the advice of Advocate Somasekhar Sundareshan as decide of Bombay HC. His identify was beneath reconsideration by the centre for airing his views on social media on a number of issues that are the subject material of consideration earlier than the courts.

The Collegium in its decision mentioned “it is of the view that the views on social media attributed to the candidate, do not furnish any foundation to infer that he is biased. The issues on which opinions have been attributed to the candidate are in the public domain and have been extensively deliberated upon in the print and electronic media.”

“The manner in which the candidate has expressed his views does not justify the inference that he is a ‘highly biased opinionated person’ or that he has been ‘selectively critical on the social media on the important policies, initiatives and directions of the Government’ (as indicated in the objections of Department of Justice) nor is there any material to indicate that the expressions used by the candidate are suggestive of his links with any political party with strong ideological leanings.”

“All citizens have the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office so long as the person proposed for judgeship is a person of competence, merit and integrity,” the collegium decision opined.

ALSO READ | ‘Collegium law of the land, has to be followed’: SC raps Centre over NJAC 

Additionally, the SC collegium in its assembly held on January 17 additionally reiterated the advice of Advocate R John Sathyan as Madras HC decide whose file was returned by the centre as he had shared a information article which was crucial of PM Narendra Modi. His file was additionally returned since he had shared a publish concerning an alleged suicide of a medical aspirant in 2017.

The collegium, in its decision, referred to an Intelligence Bureau report which revealed the advocate loved private {and professional} picture and nothing antagonistic had come to note when it got here to his integrity. The physique additionally added that John Sathyan didn’t have any political leanings. “The adverse comments of the IB extracted above in respect of posts made by him i.e. sharing an article published in ‘The Quint’ and another post regarding committing of suicide by a medical aspirant candidate in 2017 will not impinge on the suitability, character or integrity of Shri Sathyan.”

The collegium additionally beneficial for giving priority to him within the matter of appointment over three different names (Judicial officers Periyasamy Vadamalai, Ramachandran Kalaimathi and Ok. Govindarajan Thilakavadi) which the collegium additional beneficial for elevation as Madras HC judges.