Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following eleven Judicial Officers as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court:

  1. Shri Abhay Chaturvedi
  2. Shri Devendra Kachhawaha
  3. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma
  4. Ms. Prabha Sharma
  5. Shri Manoj Kumar Vyas
  6. Shri Rameshwar Vyas
  7. Shri Devendra Joshi
  8. Shri Chandra Kumar Songara
  9. Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena
  10. Shri Narendra Singh Dhaddha
  11. Shri Hemant Kumar Jain

As regards Shri Chandra Kumar Songara, (mentioned at Sl. No.8 above), consideration of the proposal for his elevation is deferred for the present and would be taken up after additional information is received from the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Devendra Kachhawaha, (2) Satish Kumar Sharma, (3) Ms. Prabha Sharma, (4) Manoj Kumar Vyas, (5) Rameshwar Vyas, (6) Devendra Joshi, (7) Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, and (8) Shri Hemant Kumar Jain (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 to 7, 9 and 11 above) consideration of their proposal for elevation is deferred for the present. The same would be taken up upon receipt of detailed information from the Department of Justice in respect of certain unconfirmed inputs pointed out in the file.

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Abhay Chaturvedi, and (2) Narendra Singh Dhaddha, Judicial Officers, be appointed as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

[Notification dt. 01-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following 14 Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Mr Justice Sandeep K. Shinde
2. Mr Justice Rohit Baban Deo
3. Mrs Justice Bharati H. Dangre
4. Mr Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
5. Mr Justice Riyaz I. Chagla
6. Mr Justice Manish Pitale
7. Mr Justice S.K. Kotwal
8. Mr Justice A.D. Upadhye
9. Mr Justice Mangesh S. Patil
10. Mr Justice A.M. Dhavale
11. Mr Justice P.K. Chavan
12. Mr Justice M.G. Giratkar
13. Mrs Justice V.V. Kankanwadi
14. Mr Justice S.M. Gavhane

The Committee constituted in terms of the Resolution dated 26th October, 2017 of the Supreme Court Collegium to assess the Judgments of the above-named recommendees, has submitted its report.

In view of the above, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S. A Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., resolved to recommend that Mr Justices (1) Sandeep K. Shinde, (2) Rohit Baban Deo, (3) Mrs. Bharati H. Dangre, (4) Sarang V. Kotwal, (5) Riyaz I. Chagla, (6) Manish Pitale, (7) S.K. Kotwal, (8) A.D. Upadhye, (9) Mangesh S. Patil, (10) A.M. Dhavale, (11) P.K. Chavan (12) M.G. Giratkar (13) Mrs. V.V. Kankanwadi and (14) S.M. Gavhane, Additional Judges be appointed as Permanent Judges of the Bombay High Court.

Collegium Resolutions

[Dated: 11-03-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising of P.R. Ramachandra Menon and Devan Ramachandran, JJ. seized of a rather bewildering appeal primarily challenging collegium recommendations, dismissed the same for being unsubstantiated with any document or evidence.

The present writ appeal was filed challenging the order dismissing appellant’s writ petition filed challenging the recommendation for elevation of certain practicing advocates as judges of this Court for reason of their proximity to some Judges, former Judges and the Advocate General. The appellant contended that the said collegium recommendations would infringe their fundamental rights.

Among the many baffling averments, the petitioner contended that the collegium system is illegal; that the judgments of Supreme Court in First, Second and Third Judges cases do not lay down the correct law and were thus being unworthy of being followed as precedents; that the basic structure theory, as postulated by the Apex Court, was a myth; and that Public Interest Litigation was being now misused. 

Baffled to see the pleadings and averments on record, the Court noted that the appellant’s pleadings were unsubstantiated by any evidence or details and as such it was an attempt to cast aspersions on the Collegium of Judges. 

Thus, the appeal was dismissed and exemplary costs were imposed on the appellant for approaching the Court asserting eligibility to be appointed as a Judge of a High Court, without even disclosing the rudimentary details as to when he was enrolled or his standing at the Bar.[C.J. Joveson v. Chief Justice of Kerala High Court, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 4947,decided on 16-11-2018]