In a noteworthy development, the Supreme Court has directed the scheduling of a contempt petition against the central government due to its alleged failure to adhere to the specified timetable for appointments to the judiciary. The petition, initiated by the Advocates Association Bengaluru, accuses the government of violating the court's instructions laid out in a 2021 verdict, which outlined a precise calendar for filling positions in constitutional courts.

This significant case was brought before a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia following an oral request by Advocate Amit Pai, who urgently sought a hearing for the matter. The petitioner-association contends that the government's actions constitute a serious breach of the court's directives, as established in the PLR Projects v. Mahanadi Coalfields case.

In a notable incident from last November, the Supreme Court issued notifications and sought responses from the justice secretary and the additional secretary responsible for government administration and appointments. During this time, the court admonished the government for causing unwarranted delays in the appointment of judges recommended by the Supreme Court collegium.

It is relevant to mention that the Attorney-General for India, R Venkataramani, had previously assured the court on behalf of the government that the stipulated timetable for judicial appointments would be strictly followed, and pending collegium recommendations would be expeditiously processed. Unfortunately, the government has purportedly not yet officially communicated the appointments of advocates Saurabh Kirpal, Somasekhar Sundaresan, and John Satyan, despite the court's reiterated approval and the rejection of the government's objections.

In earlier instances, the Supreme Court voiced its concerns about the government's conduct. The court openly criticized former law minister Kiren Rijiju's remarks challenging the collegium system and urged top legal officials to advise the government on adhering to the court's guidelines concerning judicial appointments. The court also emphasized that once a constitution bench judgment has settled the memorandum of procedure, the government cannot circumvent it. The court underscored that delays in appointments have the potential to disrupt the entire judicial system.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court expressed alarm over the government's tendency to "fragment collegium resolutions," which can adversely impact the seniority of nominees for judgeships.

As the highly consequential contempt petition against the central government is set for a hearing on September 26, legal experts and observers are poised to closely monitor the proceedings. They aim to discern the court's stance on this matter and assess potential consequences for the timely appointment of judges to constitutional courts.

Case Title: Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra And Anr. | Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 867 of 2021 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2419 of 2019.