The nomination of a Chief Justice for a “sensitive high court” and the transfer of 26 judges were both pending, according to the Supreme Court.
 New Delhi: The Supreme Court questioned today why the center has not yet forwarded high court suggestions to the Collegium, setting the stage for what may become another dispute between the Executive and Judiciary over the nomination of justices.
Upon hearing complaints that the center was taking too long to clear names, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that they were constantly monitoring the situation. “For the past 10 months, 80 high court names have been pending. There is merely a simple process that occurs. In order for the collegium to make a decision, your opinion must be heard, Justice Kaul told the center.
The bench declared that the nomination of a Chief Justice for a “sensitive high court” and the transfer of 26 judges were both still unresolved.
Justice Kaul stated, “I know how many names have been pending that have been proposed by the high court but haven’t been accepted by the Collegium.
R. Venkatramani, the attorney general, requested one week to answer. He was given two weeks by the bench, during which time he was to bring the Center’s submission. On October 9, the subject will now be heard.
Justice Kaul made forceful remarks, saying, “I have a lot to say, but I am stopping myself. I’m not saying anything because the A-G asked for a week to answer, but on the next date, I won’t stay silent.
A major cause of friction between the Supreme Court and the Executive has been the selection of judges. The government should be involved in the selection of judges, according to central ministers.
In October 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated the National Judicial Appointments Act, which granted the Executive a larger role in appointing judges.
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s comments about how the Supreme Court decision had “undone” the law last year stirred up the conflict between the Executive and Judiciary.
The Collegium system was thereafter deemed to be the “law of the land” and should be “followed to the teeth” by the court. It was said that the Collegium system would continue to be the rule of the country notwithstanding the opinions of various groups within society.
