Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following three Additional Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta,
2. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma, and
3. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Having taken into consideration all relevant factors including the above-mentioned report of the Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 8-04-2019 for the appointment of Justices (1) Sharad Kumar Gupta, (2) Ram Prasanna Sharma, and (3) Arvind Singh Chandel, Additional Judges as Permanent Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court.


[Collegium Resolution dt. 31-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following 9 Advocates as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, but only 2 Judges were recommended to be appointed as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.

Following are the names that were suggested:

1. Shri Mahendra Goyal
2. Shri Anurag Sharma
3. Shri Farzand Ali
4. Shri Manish Shishodia
5. Shri Ashvin Garg
6. Shri Rajeev Purohit
7. Shri Sachin Acharya
8. Shri Sanjay Jhanwar and
9. Smt. Anita Aggarwal

On the basis of interaction, the material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Mahendra Goyal and (2) Farzand Ali, Advocates are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court.

As regards Shri Manish Shishodia, the Collegium is of the considered view that his name deserves to be deferred.

As regards S/Shri (1) Anurag Sharma, (2) Ashvin Garg, (3) Rajeev Purohit, (4) Sachin Acharya, (5) Sanjay Jhanwar and (6) Smt. Anita Aggarwal, having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that their cases deserve to be remitted to the High Court.

Therefore, Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Mahendra Goyal and (2) Farzand Ali, Advocates, be appointed
as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. 


[Collegium Resolution dt. 24-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of following 4 Advocates as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and 3 Advocates as Judges of the Telangana High Court:

1 Shri R. Raghunandan Rao (A.P.),
2 Shri T. Vinod Kumar (Telangana),
3 Shri Battu Devanand (A.P.),
4 Shri D. Ramesh (A.P.),
5 Shri A. Abhishek Reddy (Telangana),
6 Shri N. Jayasurya (A.P.) and
7 Shri K. Lakshman (Telangana)

On the basis of interaction, material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) R. Raghunandan Rao, (2) T. Vinod Kumar, (3) Battu Devanand, (4) D. Ramesh, (5) A. Abhishek Reddy, (6) N. Jayasurya and (7) K. Lakshman are suitable for being elevated to the High Court Bench.

Therefore, in view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that:

(i) S/Shri (1) R. Raghunandan Rao, (2) Battu Devanand, (3) D. Ramesh and (4) N. Jayasurya be appointed as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice; and

(ii) S/Shri (1) T. Vinod Kumar, (2) A. Abhishek Reddy and (3) K. Lakshman be appointed as Judges of the Telangana High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.


[Collegium Resolution dt. 25-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of 8 Advocates, as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court:

1. Shri Jasgurpreet Singh Puri,
2. Shri Suvir Sehgal,
3. Shri Girish Agnihotri,
4. Mrs. Alka Sarin,
5. Shri Inder Pal Singh Doabia,
6. Shri Kamal Sehgal,
7. Shri Puneet Bali and
8. Shri Vikas Bahl

On the basis of interaction, material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, (2) Suvir Sehgal, (3) Girish Agnihotri, (4) Mrs. Alka Sarin, and (5) Kamal Sehgal are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Puneet Bali and (2) Vikas Bahl (mentioned at Sl. Nos.7 and 8 above), the Collegium is of the considered view that consideration of the proposal for their elevation deserves to be deferred. Collegium was also of the view that  Shri Inder Pal Singh Doabia deserves to be remitted to the High Court.

Therefore, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, (2) Suvir Sehgal, (3) Girish Agnihotri, (4) Mrs. Alka Sarin, and (5) Kamal Sehgal, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. 


[Collegium Resolution dt. 25-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of following 9 Advocates as Judges of the Calcutta High Court:

Advocates

1. Dibyendra Narayana Ray
2. Jaytosh Majumdar
3. Sagar Bandyopadhyay
4. Amitesh Banerjee
5. Raja Basu Chowdhury
6. Manju Bhuteria
7. Vineeta Meharia
8. Lapita Banerji and
9. Sakya Sen

On the basis of interaction, the material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Jaytosh Majumdar, (2) Amitesh Banerjee, (3) Raja Basu Chowdhury, (4) Smt. Lapita Banerji and (5) Sakya Sen (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Calcutta High Court.

As regards (1) Dibyendra Narayana Ray, (2) Sagar Bandyopadhyay, (3) Smt. Manju Bhuteria and (4) Ms. Vineeta Meharia, (mentioned at Sl. Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 above), having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that their cases deserve to be remitted to the High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Jaytosh Majumdar, (2) Amitesh Banerjee, (3) Raja Basu Chowdhury, (4) Smt. Lapita Banerji and (5) Sakya Sen, Advocates, be appointed as Judges of the Calcutta High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

Proposal for appointment of following two Advocates as Judges of the Calcutta High Court:

Advocates

1. Shri Ranajit Chatterjee and
2. Shri Kausik Chanda.

The above recommendation was made by the then Acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on 10-01-2019, in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues.

On the basis of interaction, the material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Shri Kausik Chanda, Advocate (mentioned at Sl. No. 2 above) is suitable for being appointed as Judge of the Calcutta High Court.

As regards Shri Ranajit Chatterjee, (mentioned at Sl. No.1 above), having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors including the fact that his average net professional income is below the prescribed income limit, the Collegium is of the considered view that his name deserves to be remitted to the High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

Therefore, Collegium resolved to recommend Shri Kausik Chanda, Advocate as Judge of the Calcutta High Court.


[Collegium Resolution dt. 24-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following four Judicial Officers as Judges of the Delhi High Court:

  1. Shri Talwant Singh,
  2. Rajnish Bhatnagar
  3. Ms Asha Menon
  4. Shri Brijesh Sethi

On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Talwant Singh, (2) Rajnish Bhatnagar, (3) Ms Asha Menon, and (4) Brijesh Sethi, are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Delhi High Court.

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Talwant Singh, (2) Rajnish Bhatnagar, (3) Ms Asha Menon, and (4) Brijesh Sethi, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Delhi High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.


[Notification dt. 06-05-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following two Judicial Officers to be the Judges of Rajasthan High Court while exercising the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of Constitution of India :

  • Abhay Chaturvedi
  • Narendra Singh Dhaddha

The above mentioned, in order of their seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.


[Order dt. 15-04-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following four lawyers as the Judges of Patna High Court:

  • Anjani Kumar Sharan
  • Anil Kumar Sinha
  • Prabhat Kumar Singh
  • Partha Sarthy

The above-mentioned are to be Judges of the Patna High Court, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Order dt. 15-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Anjana Mishra, JJ. dismissed a petition challenging the age requirements for District Judge examination.

Petitioner on account of having become overage for recruitment as District Judge (Entry Level) Direct from Bar Examination, 2019 prayed for a direction to modify the advertisement reckoning the maximum age of 50 years as on 01-01-2017 instead of 01-01-2019. Petitioner who was aged 52 years submitted that the maximum age prescribed, which is 50 years, should be reckoned on 01-01-2017 on the premise that the respondents have not held the examinations of District Judge (Entry Level) direct from Bar timely.

The Court noted that Rule 5(c) of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 provides that the recruitment shall be made, as far as possible, on a yearly basis. It was opined that the words used by the rule-making authority does not create a compulsion but mandates annual recruitment in the services ‘as far as possible’.

The phrase “as far as possible” means that the principles are to be observed unless it is not possible to follow them in the particular circumstances of a case. Reliance in this regard was placed on Osmania University v. V.S. Muthurangam, (1997) 10 SCC 741 where it was held that the said phrase inheres in-built flexibility. While the said phrase does not give a licence to conduct examinations lethargically or delay it for no valid reason but at the same time, the rigour of a mandate is made discretionary to a certain extent. Therefore, if the recruitment had been initiated after two years due to some intervening circumstances, there was no violation of the Service Rules.

In view of the above, the writ petition was rejected for being bereft of merits.[Ram Yad Yadav v. Registrar General, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 276, Order dated 05-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajiv Sharma, JJ., dismissed a contempt petition against a ‘Judge of a court of record’ purely on the question of law.

This petition was filed by the petitioner who was an advocate, against an alleged contempt of Court, said to be committed by the respondent who was the sitting judge of a High Court of having lost his temper along with the use of intemperate language against the petitioner. Additionally few other incidences were also stated wherein unsavoury innuendos were allegedly used plus the petitioner was threatened and warned that he would be sent to jail.

The question before the court was whether a contempt petition against the respondent “of his own Court” was at all maintainable. There were three ways for initiating proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act – (a) either taken up suo motu by a Court or (b) on a motion by the Advocate General or (c) by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. The consent of advocate general was necessary as he was a Constitutional Authority.

In the present case, a contempt petition was neither filed by the Advocate General or with his consent therein nor was taken up suo motu by the Court, therefore would be regarded merely as ‘information’. The court pressed upon the fact that the matter could only be taken up for consideration if it was ‘contempt on the face of it’ but in this case contempt cannot be initiated against a Judge of a Court of Record, on a charge of ‘committing contempt of his own court.’

The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1, also held that a contempt petition does not lie against a Judge of Court of Record.
The Court concluded by saying that “The duty of a Judge, after all, was to dispense justice – without fear or favour, affection or ill will, without passion or prejudice. It is not a part of his duty to please litigants or keep lawyers in good humor. A Judge, ironically, with respect to the office he holds, does not enjoy much liberty and freedom. The principal requirement for all Judges, and particularly for a Judge of Court of Record, is to maintain his independence. A Judge can also be very helpless at times with respect to the position he holds hence for the sake of the independence of judiciary, a Judge has to be protected, from vexatious charges and malicious litigations.” Hence for the above reasons Judge of Court of Record cannot be tried for committing a contempt of his own Court. [Chhitij Kishore Sharma v. Justice Lok Pal Singh, CCP No. 03 of 2018, Order dated 04-09-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

To dispose of pending consumer cases more smoothly, the Central Governement has notified a new model code of rules for appointment of Judges at various positions in consumer forums. It charts out ways by which vacancy can be filled on timely basis.

At present there are more than 5 lakh consumer disputes cases pending in India. In absence of the rules of appointment, as many as 400 vacancies have arisen due to which the pendency in consumer courts have increased.

The code also specifies that any consumer forum at any level won’t be able to keep more than 500 cases pending at a given time and necessary steps should be taken to minimise the pendency. In case average case filing goes above 1500 in a year in a district consumer forum, state government should establish an additional district court in the district. It was also laid down by the Department of Consumer Affairs that those positions that are likely to get vacant in case of retirement should be filled up immediately and this process should be completed in six months’ time in advance.

[Source: New Indian Express]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Lady Justice Arden DBE and Lord Justice Kitchin will join the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom as Justices on 1 October 2018, followed by Lord Justice Sales on 11 January 2019, as was announced on June 27, 2018.

Her Majesty The Queen made each of the appointments on the advice of the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor, following the recommendations of an independent selection commission. The commission consulted across each of the Supreme Court’s three UK jurisdictions before making its recommendations.

These appointments follow the retirement of Lord Mance, former Deputy President of the Court, in June 2018. Lord Hughes and Lord Sumption are due to retire in August and December 2018 respectively.

[Source: UK Supreme Court News Release]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where the question as to whether the services rendered by some Judicial Officers as Fast Track court Judges is liable to be counted for their pensionary and other benefits, the bench of J. Chelameswar and SK Kaul, JJ answered the question in affirmative and said:

“The appellants were not appointed to the Fast Track courts just at the whim and fancy of any person but were the next in line on the merit list of a judicial recruitment process. They were either part of the select list, who could not find a place given the cadre strength, or those next in line in the select list. Had there been adequate cadre strength, the recruitment process would have resulted in their appointment.”

Noticing that the judges have rendered services over a period of nine years and have performed their role as Judges to the satisfaction, otherwise there would have been no occasion for their appointment to the regular cadre strength, the bench said:

“it is a matter of great regret that these appellants who have performed the functions of a Judge to the satisfaction of the competent authorities should be deprived of their pension and retiral benefits for this period of service.”

The Court took note of the fact that the Fast Track Court Scheme was brought in to deal with the exigency and the appellants were appointed to the Fast Track courts and continued to work for almost a decade. It was also noted that the appellants were part of the initial select list/merit list for recruitment to the regular cadre strength but were not high enough to be recruited in the existing strength. Even at the stage of absorption in the regular cadre strength, they had to go through a defined process in pursuance of the judgment of this court and have continued to work thereafter

It was, hence, held:

“the methodology of non-creation of adequate regular cadre posts and the consequent establishment of Fast Track courts manned by the appellants cannot be used as a ruse to deny the dues of the appellants.”

[Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 520, decided on 11.05.2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Bench of J. Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ directed the States to implement the recommendations of the Commission headed by Justice P. Venkatarama Reddy, former Supreme Court Judge and pay interim relief to the extent of 30% of increase in basic pay with accrued increments to all categories/ranks of Judicial Officers.

The other recommendations of the Commission are as follows:

  • The said increased in Pay shall be treated as a separate component and no D.A. is payable thereon.
  • Arrears shall be worked out with effect from 01.01.2016 on the above basis.
  • On the same basis, the interim relief shall be provided to the pensioners and family pensioners with effect from 01.01.2016 and the arrears to be paid accordingly.
  • Wherever the benefit of interim relief has already been granted, the Judicial Officers in those States/UTs can exercise their option to continue to be governed by such Orders.
  • The amounts payable by way of interim relief now proposed are liable to the adjusted against the future determination pursuant to the final report submitted by the Commission.

The Court directed that the interim relief regarding the pay of the Judicial Officers as recommended by the Commission be implemented by all the concerned States and Union Territories w.e.f. 1st of May, 2018 and the arrears payable pursuant to the abovementioned recommendations shall be paid on or before 30th June, 2018.

The Court took note of the fact the Committee faced certain difficulties in the process of executing the task entrusted to them, the Court directed that:

  • The Chairman and Members of the Commission should receive emoluments/pay and allowances from 01.06.2017 as they had commenced work in the first week of June, 2017.
  • The Secretary should receive emoluments w.e.f. 01.09.2017, as he had commenced work on 16.08.2017.

[All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 312, order dated 27.03.2018]

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India appointed Justice Mukhtar Ahmad, Amar Singh Chauhan,  Shamsher Bahadur Singh,  Vinod Kumar Misra, Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Raghvendra Kumar, and Pratyush Kumar, Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, to be Judges of the Allahabad High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 13th January, 2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court:  Disposing of an appeal filed in 1985 against a judgment and decree in a partition suit, the Court observed that, “It is really very unfortunate that this appeal has remained pending on the Board of this Court for almost 30 years and has to pass through hands of as many as 75 Hon’ble Judges or so but still the solution to the problem of dividing the property (which happens to be the piece of land measuring approximately 7794.63 sq yd along with super structure) could not be found out to the satisfaction of all the parties.”

The Bench of V.K. Shali, J. observed that, “In the city of Delhi, the prices of land have risen beyond the imagination. As a matter of fact, the prices have become prohibitive to own the house, plot or flat. As a necessary consequence of this, wherever there is a dispute between the co-sharers of a property, effort of one party is to bring the other party to its knees by tiring out its resources and patience so that it becomes almost a distress sale by such a party to the other co-sharer.”

With reference to Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 the Court observed that “a perusal of the aforesaid section would clearly show that the court can order sale of the property if it is convinced that the division of the property reasonably and conveniently cannot be effected by metes and bounds. In the present case, the Court is of the view that partition of the suit property cannot be reasonably and conveniently affected then the Court has no other option but to order sale of the property. In the present case, the partition by metes and bounds could not be affected for the last 30 years. Therefore, the only alternative is to order sale”.

The Court appointed Senior Counsel Ms Meenakshi Arora as the Court Commissioner and Ms Natahsha, Advocate to assist her for the purpose of conducting an open, transparent and fair sale of the suit property by inviting bids from members of the general public, directing the process to be completed within a period of four months. [Ramesh Dutt Salwan v. Shiv Dutt Salwan, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2909, order dated May 10, 2016]