On Tuesday, November 7, the Supreme Court again voiced its disapproval of the Central Government's practice of selectively accepting names from collegium resolutions for judicial appointments, describing it as a "pick and choose" approach.

Further, the Court conveyed its concerns to the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, regarding specific recommendations from the collegium for the transfer of High Court judges that are currently awaiting action by the Central Government.

A two-judge bench, composed of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, orally criticized the Central Government's practice of selectively segregating collegium recommendations. Justice Kaul highlighted a recent instance involving appointments to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the Supreme Court collegium recommended the elevation of five advocates as judges.

However, the Centre only approved three names, neglecting the candidates listed in the first and second positions. Justice Kaul pointed out that this pattern was observable in various recent appointments made by the Central Government.

Categorically asking the Centre to stop this practice, Justice Kaul, addressing the AG, said : "This pick-and-choose must stop..This is not an off-hand remark, but something I have discussed with the collegium."

While acknowledging the positive developments in judicial appointments during the past two weeks under the Court's supervision, Justice Kaul noted two remaining concerns that continued to trouble the Court: 1. The backlog of transfer requests, and 2. The practice of selectively accepting certain names.

In the order, the bench recorded the assurance of the Attorney General that he will take up the issue with the Government. The bench warned that it might pass orders on the judicial side if the problem is not remedied by the Government itself. "We hope the situation does not come to a pass that the collegium or this court takes a decision which is not palatable," the bench observed in the order.

In the course of the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, asserted that it was now imperative for the Court to take assertive action rather than relying on assurances from the Attorney General. He suggested it was time for the Court to "crack the whip."

Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, representing the Advocates Association of Bengaluru, urged the Court to pass directions under Article 141 of the Constitution.

The bench posted the matter for next hearing on November 20.