Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai on Thursday said he has been trying to persuade the Union government on the administrative side to expedite judicial appointments, even as he lamented that an “extraordinary” woman lawyer recently withdrew her consent for elevation to the Delhi High Court after waiting for nearly a year without any response from the Centre. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai lamented that an “extraordinary” woman lawyer recently withdrew her consent for elevation to the Delhi High Court after waiting for nearly a year without any response from the Centre. (PTI)

The CJI’s anguish over the Centre’s inaction on judicial appointments came after a long-pending contempt plea over delays in processing collegium recommendations was mentioned before him for assigning a date of hearing.

Senior counsel Arvind Datar, representing for the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, mentioned the plea concerning prolonged delays by the Union government in clearing names recommended, and in many cases reiterated by the collegium for appointment to various high courts.

Datar pointed out that some names have been pending since 2019, despite multiple reiterations in 2021 and 2022. “It cannot be three or four years. Timelines have also been laid down by this court,” said Datar, urging the bench to revive the long-dormant case. The matter was last listed in December 2023, but dropped without explanation on the day it was fixed before a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (since retired), he said.

Acknowledging the growing frustration among recommended candidates due to the government’s inaction, the CJI said: “We have also been trying to persuade the government on the administrative side.”

Assisted by advocate Amit Pai, Datar further added that two highly-regarded candidates, one from Mumbai and another from Delhi, had withdrawn their consent out of sheer frustration, citing the prolonged silence from the Centre.

“We were told the woman candidate from Delhi who withdrew her consent is extraordinary and that she is really good,” said CJI Gavai, referring to advocate Shwetasree Majumdar, a leading intellectual property law expert whose name had been recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium in August 2024. Despite clearing all formalities, including the mandatory medical examination, Majumdar’s appointment remained stalled without explanation, prompting her to formally withdraw her candidature recently.

Responding, Datar said that the lawyer from Mumbai was also very good and could have become an asset for the judiciary. Besides Majumdar, veteran civil and commercial lawyer Rajesh Sudhakar Datar, who was recommended for the Bombay High Court in September 2024, pulled out earlier this month.

In his case, while three other names from the same batch, including juniors in experience, were cleared and appointed, his name was inexplicably kept on hold for nine months. “There has been no word, no explanation. So, I decided to withdraw. It is for the sake of my own self-respect and for the respect of the entire bar,” Rajesh Datar told Hindustan Times on July 6.

The CJI then assured senior counsel Datar that the matter would be listed before a new bench after two weeks.

As first reported by HT on June 19, CJI Gavai had, soon after assuming office, conveyed to the Union government that recommendations made by the Collegium, whether for appointment or transfer, must be processed in their entirety, without cherry-picking.

Currently, at least 27 recommendations, including those of four women lawyers, remain pending, even as the Supreme Court has stressed repeatedly that the executive cannot hold names in limbo indefinitely.

Apart from these, on July 2, the Supreme Court collegium cleared a record 36 names for appointment across high courts in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Patna, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan and others, following a marathon two-day round of personal interviews with 54 candidates. The government’s response is awaited in these cases as well.

In the same vein, senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, whose name has been pending since 2021 due to reported objections over his sexual orientation and his partner’s foreign nationality, remains excluded. “It is not just about judicial appointments. The Bar must also speak up about transfers and how courts are run,” Kirpal told HT earlier this month. “But the Bar no longer sees itself as a participant in the justice process. It has become political.” Kirpal, however, remains resolute: “I will not withdraw my consent. I have to act on my conscience.”

The deadlock over recommendations as well as selective appointments of judges by the government have often sparked concerns over the opacity of the appointments process and the growing tendency of the Centre to exercise an unaccountable veto. A bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, in a series of hearings between 2022 and 2023, called the Centre’s selective processing “troublesome” and warned that delays undermine institutional trust. While the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governs the appointments process, it does not prescribe a binding timeline, allowing the executive to sit indefinitely on recommendations.

The contempt petition, filed by the Advocates Association, Bengaluru in 2021, has sought accountability for these inordinate delays. The matter saw no progress after December 2023 following the retirement of Justice Kaul.