உயர் நீதிமன்ற நீதிபதிகள் நியமனத்தில் 34 பேருக்கு ஒப்புதல் கொடுத்து கொலீஜியம் பரிந்துரை செய்த 43 பேரை மத்திய அரசு திருப்பி அனுப்பியது
நாடு முழுவதிலும் இருக்கின்ற காலியாக இருக்கும் பல்வேறு உயர் நீதிமன்ற நீதிபதிகள் பணியிடங்களுக்கு “கொலீஜியம்’ குழு பரிந்துரைத்த 77 பேரில் 34 பேரின் நியமனங்களுக்கு மட்டும் ஒப்புதல் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. மீதமுள்ள பரிந்துரைகள் மறு பரிசீலனைக்காக திருப்பி அனுப்பப்பட்டுள்ளதாகவும் மத்திய அரசு உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் கடந்த வெள்ளிக்கிழமை தெரிவித்துள்ளது.
Appointment of Judges : Returned 43 of 77 names favored by collegium
THE UNION GOVERNMENT on Friday gave information to the Supreme Court that it has returned 43 out of 77 names favored by collegium for arrangement as judges in the High Courts, raising protests against their height.
A seat drove by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur was given information by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that while 34 arrangements have been done, 43 names have been sent back to the collegium. “So as on date, there is not a solitary document pending with us,” the AG submitted.
The administration’s accommodation came even as the CJI has said more than once that the collegium in the Supreme Court has been exceptionally watchful with clearing the names for arrangements as judges in high courts and around 50 for each penny of names had been dropped to guarantee no one could raise a finger on the decisions. In any case, the administration, with a series of protests, has sent back 43 names to the collegium for reexamination.
In the wake of being informed by the AG of the circumstance, the seat said that it would confirm from the records and take up the matter one week from now.
The AG additionally brought up that the new Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) was yet to be confined and that the legislature had not got notification from the peak court collegium after it sent an updated draft on August 3. The seat reacted that it would investigate it and some improvement may occur before the following date of hearing.
On the last date of becoming aware of a bunch of petitions on postponement in arrangements of judges, the seat had addressed if the focal government needed the whole legal framework to be “bolted out”.
The top court said that it “can’t permit the official to pulverize the framework” by what it called was its “inaction, wastefulness or unwillingness” to choose judges.
Lashing out at the legislature for sitting over the documents of judges’ arrangements regardless of freedom by the collegium nine months prior, the seat had said that the administration can not one or the other “leave the working of the organization” nor be permitted “to convey the whole framework to a granulating stop”. The AG had then looked for some an opportunity to look for directions and return on the status of arrangements.