English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Collegium recommends making 37 additional judges in 5 high courts permanent

Published

on

NRI admission to minority college: SC refers case back to high court

The Supreme Court Collegium of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi has unanimously recommended to the Centre to appoint 37 additional judges – including five women judges – serving across five high courts as permanent judges.

The decision of the Collegium comes at a time when there is uncertainty over whether or not the Centre will accept its earlier recommendation of appointing two judges to the Supreme Court.

The Collegium had last month unanimously recommended to the Centre to elevate Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph as judge of the apex court. It had also recommended the appointment of senior advocate Indu Malhotra as a Supreme Court judge; if the Centre accepts this recommendation then Malhotra would become the first ever woman lawyer to be elevated straight from the Bar to the Supreme Court bench. However, it is learnt that the Centre is reluctant to accept these recommendations, particularly the elevation of Justice Joseph, of the Collegium.

On Friday, the Collegium passed five resolutions recommending that the 37 additional judges in the high courts of Allahabad, Kerala, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Bombay be made permanent.

According to the Collegium’s resolution with regard to appointments at the Bombay High Court, additional judges Justices Prakash Deu Naik, Makarand Subhash Karnik, Swapna Sanjiv Joshi, Kishor Kalesh Sonawane, Sangitrao Shamrao Patil, and Nutan Dattaram Sardessai, have been recommended to be made permanent. They were appointed as additional judges of the High Court in March 2016.

Though not naming any particular judge from this list, the Collegium’s resolution states: “We have taken note of certain complaints making allegations against some of the above-named recommendees (of the Bombay High Court). We do not see any merit in the aforesaid complaints as the allegations made therein are false, frivolous or without any substance. In our considered view, the said complaints deserve to be ignored, particularly, in the light of positive material on record… the Collegium finds all the above-named Additional Judges suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judges.”

Similarly, the Collegium has recommended that all seven additional judges of the Gujarat High Court be made permanent. Justices RP Dholaria, Ashutosh J Shastri, Biren A Vaishnav, Alpesh Y Kogje, Arvindsingh I Supehia, and BN Karia figure in this list. Further, Justice KJ Thaker, an additional judge from the Gujarat High Court who had been transferred to the Allahabad High Court, has also been recommended to be made a permanent judge and will continue to serve in his current posting.

The Collegium’s resolution with regard to the additional judges of the Gujarat High Court states: “As per record, Dr. Justice K.J. Thaker (who hails from Gujarat High Court and at present is functioning, on transfer, in Allahabad High Court) and Mr. Justice R.P. Dholaria were initially appointed for a period of two years on 4th May, 2013 and their term as Additional Judges had to be extended for a period of one year w.e.f. 4th May, 2015 since at the relevant time permanent vacancies were not available to accommodate them. The record further shows that their term having been further extended for a period of two years is now due to expire on 3rd May, 2018.”

With specific reference to Justice KJ Thaker, the Collegium resolution says: “As regards Dr. Justice K.J. Thaker, the record shows that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court has forwarded statistics for the period of his tenure in that High Court and has stated inter alia that he has not received any written complaint against Dr. Justice K J Thaker either from the office bearers or members of the Bar Association.” It further adds: “We have taken note of certain complaint/s placed in the file by the Department of Justice as well as those received in the office of Chief Justice of India. Therein, allegations have been made against some of the above-named recommendees (from the Gujarat High Court). We do not see any merit in the aforesaid  complaints as the allegations made therein are found to be false, without any substance or are not supported by any reliable evidence/document. As they do not call for any action, in our considered view, the said complaints deserve to be ignored…”

From the Kerala High Court, the Collegium has decided to recommend that additional judges Justices Sathish Ninan, Devan Ramachandran, P Somarajan, V Shircy, and AM Babu be made permanent judges.

The maximum number of additional judges to be recommended for being made permanent – 10 – are from the Rajasthan High Court.

From the Rajasthan High Court, the Collegium has recommended that Justices Ganga Ram Moolchandani, Deepak Maheshwari, Vijay Kumar Vyas, Goverdhan Bardhar, Pankaj Bhandari, Dinesh Chandra Somani, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Dinesh Mehta, and Vinit Kumar Mathur be made permanent. The resolution noted that there were “certain complaints making allegations” against some of these judges too but that the Collegium did not see any merit in these complaints that the “complaints deserve to be ignored”.

The additional judges recommended to be made permanent at the Allahabad High Court are: Justices Rajul Bhargava, Siddhartha Varma, Sangeeta Chandra, Daya Shankar Tripathi, Shailendra Kumar Agrawal, Sanjay Harkauli, Krishna Pratap Singh, Rekha Dikshit, and Satya Narain Agnihotri.

Interestingly, while the Collegium of the Allahabad High Court, Uttar Pradesh Governor Ram Naik and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had collectively endorsed names of 10 additional judges of the Allahabad High Court to be made permanent, the Supreme Court Collegium has approved only the above mentioned nine judges while holding back the name of Justice Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar-II.

The Collegium’s resolution on the Allahabad High Court judges says: “Taking into consideration the material on record, the recommendation of the High Court Collegium, views of our consultee-colleagues and the report of the Judgment Evaluation Committee, the Collegium finds the above-named Additional Judges, except Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar-II, suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judges. We are of the view that the working of Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar-II as Additional Judge needs to be observed for some more time.”

— With Agency inputs

India News

PM Modi assures no discrimination in women’s quota, delimitation debate intensifies in Parliament

PM Narendra Modi has assured that women’s reservation will be implemented without discrimination, amid a heated debate over delimitation in Parliament.

Published

on

PM modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assured that there will be no discrimination in the implementation of women’s reservation, as Parliament witnessed a sharp debate over the proposed linkage between the quota and delimitation exercise.

During the ongoing special session, the government reiterated its commitment to ensuring fair representation while addressing concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the timing and structure of the legislation.

The proposed framework aims to reserve 33 percent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. However, its implementation is tied to a fresh delimitation exercise, which is expected after the next census.

Opposition questions timing and intent

Opposition leaders have raised concerns that linking the women’s quota to delimitation could delay its implementation. They argue that the process of redrawing constituencies may push the actual rollout further into the future.

The issue has triggered a broader political confrontation, with multiple parties questioning whether the move could alter representation across states.

Some critics have also alleged that the delimitation exercise could disproportionately benefit certain regions based on population, a charge the government has rejected.

Government reiterates commitment to fair implementation

Responding to these concerns, the Centre has maintained that the reforms are necessary to ensure accurate and updated representation based on population data.

Leaders from the ruling side have repeatedly emphasized that the process will be carried out transparently and without bias. The assurance that there will be “no discrimination” is aimed at addressing fears among states and opposition parties.

The debate marks a key moment in Parliament, with both sides engaging in intense exchanges over one of the most significant electoral reforms in recent years.

Continue Reading

India News

Give all tickets to Muslim women, Amit Shah says, attacking Akhilesh Yadav on sub-quota demand

A sharp exchange between Amit Shah and Akhilesh Yadav in Parliament over sub-quota for Muslim women highlights key divisions on women’s reservation implementation.

Published

on

A heated exchange broke out in Parliament during discussions on the women’s reservation framework, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav locking horns over the demand for a sub-quota for Muslim women.

The debate unfolded as the government pushed forward key legislative measures to implement 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Akhilesh Yadav argued that the proposed reservation must ensure representation for women from marginalised communities, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Muslim women. He said that without such provisions, large sections could remain excluded from political participation.

He also questioned the timing of the bill, alleging that the Centre was avoiding a caste census. According to him, a census would lead to renewed demands for caste-based reservations, which the government is reluctant to address.

Government rejects religion-based quota

Responding to the demand, Amit Shah made it clear that reservation based on religion is not permitted under the Constitution.

He stated that any proposal to provide quota to Muslims on religious grounds would be unconstitutional, firmly rejecting the idea of a separate sub-quota for Muslim women within the broader reservation framework.

The government has maintained that the existing framework already includes provisions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) women within the overall reservation structure.

Wider political divide over implementation

The issue of sub-categorisation within the women’s quota has emerged as a major flashpoint, even as most opposition parties broadly support the idea of women’s reservation.

Samajwadi Party leaders reiterated that their support for the bill depends on inclusion of OBC and minority women, while the government continues to defend its constitutional position.

The debate is part of a broader discussion during the special Parliament session, where multiple bills linked to delimitation and implementation of the women’s quota are being taken up.

Continue Reading

India News

No state will lose a seat, Centre assures as delimitation debate takes centre stage in Parliament

Parliament’s special session begins with key focus on implementing women’s reservation and delimitation, setting the stage for major electoral changes.

Published

on

Parliament

A special session of Parliament commenced on Thursday, with the Centre set to take up crucial legislation related to women’s reservation and delimitation of constituencies. The session, scheduled over three days, is expected to witness intense debate as the government pushes forward its legislative agenda.

At the centre of discussions is the proposal to operationalise the women’s reservation law, which seeks to allocate 33 percent of seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies to women. The law, passed earlier, requires enabling provisions before it can be implemented.

The rollout of the reservation is closely tied to the delimitation exercise — a process that redraws parliamentary constituencies based on updated population data. The implementation is expected only after the next census and delimitation process are completed.

The government is aiming to put in place the framework so that the reservation can be enforced in future elections, likely around 2029.

Delimitation and numbers at play

Delimitation is a key aspect of the proposed changes, as it will determine how seats are redistributed and which constituencies are reserved. The exercise is expected to reflect population shifts and may also involve an increase in the total number of Lok Sabha seats.

This linkage has made the issue politically sensitive, with several opposition parties backing women’s reservation in principle but raising concerns over how and when delimitation will be carried out.

Political reactions and expected debate

The session is likely to see sharp exchanges between the government and opposition. While there is broad agreement on increasing women’s representation, disagreements remain over the timing, process, and potential political implications of the delimitation exercise.

Some leaders have argued that delimitation could significantly alter the balance of representation among states, making it a contentious issue beyond the women’s quota itself.

The government, however, has framed the move as a step toward strengthening women’s participation in governance and ensuring more inclusive policymaking.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com