On Monday, the Supreme Court's Division Bench wasted no time in expressing its displeasure with the Centre for sitting over proposals for judicial appointments reiterated by the Collegium.

A division bench then questioned whether the recommendations were withheld due to the government's dissatisfaction with the National Judicial Appointments Commission's non-implementation.

"The issue is, names are not being cleared. How does the system work? We have expressed our anguish…It appears that the Govt is not happy that the NJAC has not passed the muster. Can that be the reason to not clear the names?"

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, brought to the bench the Law Minister's scathing comments that "never say the government is sitting on the files, then don't send the files to the government, you appoint yourself, you run the show then."

"When someone high enough says that..it should not have happened..Mr AG, I have ignored all press reports, but this has come from somebody high enough also. With an interview... I am not saying anything else.."

"The whole process takes time, IB inputs are taken. Your inputs are taken. Supreme Court collegium considers your inputs and sends the name. Once it is reiterated, that is the end of the matter, as the law stands now."

"If we look at the position of pending cases for consideration, there are 11 cases pending with the Government which were cleared by the Collegium and yet are awaiting appointments. The oldest of them is of vintage 04.09.2021 as the date of dispatch and the last two on 13.09.2022. This implies that the Government neither appoints the persons and nor communicates its reservation, if any, on the names.", the bench observed in the order.

The bench, which also included Justice AS Oka, was considering a contempt petition filed in 2021 by the Advocates Association Bengaluru against the Centre for failing to approve 11 names reiterated by the Supreme Court collegium. The Association contended that the Centre's actions are in direct violation of the Supreme Court's directive in PLR Projects Ltd v. Mahanadi Coalfields Pvt Ltd, which stated that names reiterated by the Collegium must be cleared by the Centre within 3 to 4 weeks. One of the cases mentioned in the petition is Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, whose appointment to the Karnataka High Court was renewed in September 2021. Sondhi withdrew his consent for judicial appointment in February 2022 because no approval for his appointment was forthcoming.

Case Title: The Advocates' Association Bengaluru v. Shri Barun Mitra, Secretary (Justice)