In a surprising turn of events at the Supreme Court, petitions challenging the delay in appointing judges by the Central Government were conspicuously absent from today's hearing, despite a specific directive given during the previous session. The matter was brought to the attention of the bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represents one of the petitioners.

Despite the initial listing of the petitions on today's cause list, they were subsequently removed, prompting Bhushan to express his concern. "The matter of judges' appointments is not on today's list. It is strange that it has been deleted," he remarked. In response, Justice Kaul stated, "I will just say one thing. I have not deleted the matter." Bhushan suggested seeking an explanation from the Registry, to which Justice Kaul responded, "I am sure the Chief Justice is aware of it."

Bhushan pointed out the unusual nature of the situation, noting the existence of a judicial order to list the matter. Justice Kaul explained, "Yesterday I found it was deleted. I checked up." When Bhushan remarked on the strangeness of the situation, Justice Kaul cryptically responded, "Some things are best left unsaid sometimes." Importantly, he clarified, "I clarify that it is not that I have deleted the matter or that I am unwilling to take the matter. Both."

This development follows the court's repeated criticism of the Central Government for delaying the implementation of collegium resolutions. The court had expressed dissatisfaction with the government's "pick-and-choose" approach, where only specific recommendations were approved, while others were intentionally left pending.

In the previous hearing, the court had raised concerns about the selective notification of the transfer of judges, particularly highlighting the failure to transfer four judges from the Gujarat High Court despite collegium recommendations. Justice Kaul, who had earlier informed the Attorney General about scheduling regular hearings to monitor appointment progress, is set to retire on December 25. It's worth noting that the court will go on summer vacation starting December 15, adding a layer of complexity to the ongoing judicial proceedings.