The Supreme Court told the Central Government on Thursday that the collegium system is the "law of the land" and should be "followed to the teeth". The Court added that just because some segments of society are opposed to the collegium system does not mean that it is no longer the law of the land. The division bench, comprised of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka, and Vikram Nath, also stated unequivocally that the Constitution Bench judgments that established the collegium system for appointing judges must be followed.

The case before the court was a contempt petition filed by the Advocates Association of Bangalore against the Centre for failing to meet the deadline for judicial appointments. A PIL filed in 2018 by the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation on the same issue is also listed today. The bench also noted today that the Centre recently returned 19 names, 10 of which were reiterated by the collegium. The bench also stated that the issue would be addressed by the Collegium. The bench expressed its concern that the delay in appointments is discouraging meritorious people from joining the judiciary, and that it was a difficult situation.

The bench rejected the Centre's view, expressed in the AG's status report, that the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointing judges should be reconsidered. The Centre had cited observations made by Justices Ranjan Gogoi and J Chelameswar in their judgments in the suo motu contempt case against Justice CS Karnan that the MoP needed to be reconsidered.

Prashant Bhushan, representing the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, stated that his petition was filed four years ago, highlighting the issue of the government selectively keeping some names pending. He used the example of the government delaying the elevation of Justice KM Joseph in 2018. Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India, objected strongly to Bhushan's petition, stating that the matter should not be turned into a public debate in which anyone can start taking the names of the judges.

Case Title: The Advocates' Association Bengaluru v. Shri Barun Mitra, Secretary (Justice)
Citation: CONMT.PET.(C) No. 867/ 2021