The renowned lawyer Prashant Bhushan has raised serious questions about the unexpected removal of a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) from the Supreme Court cause list. These PILs were focusing on seeking contempt proceedings against the government, highlighting delays in appointing and transferring high court judges.

Dated December 8 but disclosed on Monday, Bhushan's letter to the Supreme Court registry expressed deep concern over the abrupt removal of the case, originally scheduled for December 5. He deemed it a "grave impropriety" and called upon the court to provide written reasons for this unusual action to the concerned petitioners. Bhushan warned that the failure to do so would compel the petitioners to explore legal remedies.

Making a reference to Rule 7 of Order III in the Supreme Court Rules of 2013, Bhushan emphasized the registrar's obligation to strictly adhere to the rules of listing. Any deviation from the prescribed rules for scheduling a matter on a specific date, should only be justified in the presence of special orders from the Chief Justice.

The controversy came to light on December 5 when Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, leading the bench slated to address the issue, expressed surprise at the deletion during the court proceedings. Justice Kaul cryptically remarked, "Some things are best left unsaid," suggesting a lack of knowledge about the removal but hinting that the Chief Justice might be aware of it. This revelation occurred after Bhushan, representing the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), brought the deletion to the judge's attention.

The bench, comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, has been vigilant on matters related to the appointment and transfer of judges, holding the Centre accountable for its handling of recommendations by the collegium. Notably, Justice Kaul is set to retire this month.

In his letter, Bhushan underscored the significance of a specific case related to the appointment of judges, namely the Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India. He pointed out the mysterious removal of this case from the cause list, highlighting the absence of any notification to him or the petitioner organization about the deletion.

Bhushan termed the removal irregular, particularly given that it occurred without the knowledge of the presiding senior judge and in direct violation of a judicial order specifying the fixed date of December 5, 2023. He emphasized the gravity of the situation, urging the court to provide written explanations for the deletion.

The lawyer reminded the court of the bench's earlier directives, demanding compliance from the union government in matters related to the notification of judicial appointments. Bhushan stressed the meticulous oversight exercised by the bench to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system.

In conclusion, Bhushan emphasized the importance of justice in this matter and urged the court to provide written reasons for the deletion of the case from the cause list. Failure to do so, he warned, would compel the petitioners to seek appropriate legal remedies. This situation follows Bhushan's earlier letter on December 7, where he raised concerns about the reassignment of petitions challenging the use of the anti-terror law UAPA, alleging a violation of established rules.