SC collegium questions govt move to scan record of candidates

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court collegium has questioned the government's move to hold “detailed scrutiny” of professional record of advocates and judicial officers recommended for a judgeship by high courts, but the Law Ministry continues to send a summary of the candidates' professional track record to the body of top five judges.

In July 2017, the Law Ministry had informed the Cabinet Secretary that, “now the process of detailed scrutiny of proposals received for the appointment of judges from high courts has been initiated.”

“In the case of advocates, their reported judgements (in cases they represented), and in case of judicial officers their case disposal time and many adjournments are being evaluated by an in-house team having a legal background.

But the government's move was recently questioned by the apex court collegium.

“As regards the comments regarding her professional competence, it is for the judiciary to assess her performance. Professional competence cannot be adjudged from unconfirmed/unsubstantiated inputs,” the collegium noted while approving the elevation of a woman judicial officer to the Madras High Court as an additional judge.

A senior government functionary said the SC collegium has said “nothing explicitly to the government about the scrutiny. But the noting on the collegium recommendation makes it clear that they have not taken the move kindly.”

The functionary said the Department of Justice in the Law Ministry continues to send a summary of all judicial officers and lawyers being considered for appointment as judges of high courts to the SC collegium.

In case of lawyers, their list of the reported judgements of cases which they have argued in the high court is made part of the summary. The judicial officers are evaluated on various attributes and are given numerical grading. As per procedure, once the three-member high court collegium recommends a name to the SC collegium, the HC panel also sends the performance record of the candidate.

The recommendation is initially sent to the law ministry, which attaches an IB report about the candidate's overall record and forwards it to the SC collegium for a final call.

Citing the case of former Calcutta High Court judge justice C S Karnan – who was sentenced to six months in jail by the Supreme Court for contempt of court – the government had in July last year once again asked the Supreme Court collegium to review the process of appointment of judges, according to the senior government functionary.

The Secretary (Justice) in the Law Ministry has written to the Supreme Court Registrar General pointing to the July 5 judgement of the apex court in which two judges had called for the need to revisit the process of selection and appointment of judges.

Judicial appointments as of now are being carried out based on the old memorandum of procedure (MOP). After a bench headed by then, Chief Justice J S Khehar ruled in December 2015 in favour of a fresh MOP - a document which guides appointments and elevation of Supreme Court and high court judges – a new draft was sent to the collegium by the law ministry.

The bail plea was opposed by public prosecutor Amit Chadha who contended that the allegations against the accused were serious in nature

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to suspected Indian Mujahideen (IM) member Fasih Mahmood, who was deported from Saudi Arabia in 2012, in connection with a case of setting up of an alleged illegal arms factory here.

The court said there was no valid reason to grant bail to Mahmood, an aide of IM cofounder Yasin Bhatkal, considering the gravity of offence and serious allegation against him.

Justice S P Garg noted that the accused has already been denied bail earlier by the high court and the Supreme Court in 2016.

Since the bail has already been declined on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances, this court finds no valid reasons to grant bail to the petitioner (Mahmood) considering the gravity of the offence and serious allegations against him allegedly being member of an unlawful organisation i.e. Indian Mujahideen in India charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 20 of the UAPA. The bail application is dismissed, the court said in its order.

Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) relates to punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation and it entails a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

Mahmood's counsel sought bail, saying that merely because the e-mail IDS of the cousin brother of the accused were found on his laptop, it cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance against him.

He said no evidence has surfaced to infer if the accused ever attempted to exhort any individual to carry out the activities of IM in India.

However, the bail plea was opposed by public prosecutor Amit Chadha who contended that the allegations against the accused were serious in nature.

The revision petition filed by Mahmood against charges framed by the trial court is pending before the high court and is listed for hearing on May 22. The trial court is also recording statements of prosecution witnesses in the case.

Pursuant to directions of the apex court, the lower court had expedited the trial in the case and has recorded statements of over 50 prosecution witnesses.

Mahmood, along with Bhatkal and several other members of the banned terror outfit, was an accused in the case in which a supplementary charge sheet was recently filed against Bhatkal and one of his close aide Asadullah Akhtar.

The special cell of Delhi Police had alleged that a huge quantity of arms and ammunition were recovered from the illegal arms factory located in Meer Vihar area here.

Police had claimed that Bhatkal, Akhtar and others, including Mahmood, were part of the conspiracy to carry out terror strikes in the country.

Mahmood, a mechanical engineer by profession, is allegedly one of the key members of the IM'S dreaded Darbhanga module which had carried out various terror strikes in the country since 2008.

He was alleged to be the "motivator" for driving the youth to join the IM. Mahmood was charge sheeted for offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substances Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

Mahmood was deported from Saudi Arabia and was arrested at the IGI Airport here on October 22, 2012. He was detained in Saudi Arabia in May 2012.