Govt sends names for appointment as judges to IB

record to show. In the third case, the IB is learnt to have said, the candidate lawyer lived with his brother, whose name had reportedly surfaced in the Essar tapes.

In the last week of July, the Ministry sent these names back to the IB for a clarification. This time, the Bureau said that although there was a public perception that the “integrity” of two of the three lawyers was not above board, there was nothing to substantiate this perception.

But it stood firm regarding the third name — and maintained this lawyer had not independently argued any major case either in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts. The Law Ministry has received the second IB report, and is mulling its options pending finalisation of the new MOP.

The fourth case of appointment pertains to a sitting judge of the Delhi district courts. His recommendation was stalled by the High Court collegium in November 2014 after a preliminary inquiry was launched against him and around 300 other trial court judges over alleged financial misdemeanour in purchasing electronic items, particularly laptops.

The inquiry was conducted by Justice B D Ahmed of the Delhi High Court, and he submitted his report to the full court — comprising all judges of the High Court — in May this year.

In a letter dated June 4, Delhi High Court informed Chief Justice of India T S Thakur that the inquiry had been completed, and that “the full court by a majority had decided that no action was warranted against this district judge”.

Subsequently, on July 15, the CJI wrote to Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, asking him to “revive” the proposal made for elevating this candidate as a judge in the Delhi High Court. “...The proposal dated October 15, 2014 be revived and processed expeditiously,” read the CJI’S letter, which also informed Prasad that the decision had been taken by the Supreme Court collegium a day earlier.

Sources in the Law Ministry told The Indian Express that basic issues of procedural compliance have cropped up in clearing this name because the proposal should have come from the High Court collegium. Convention also required that a report be sought from the IB about this district judge’s service record and credentials between 2014 and July 2016. This file is, therefore, currently stuck.

The fifth case relates to the transfer of a Delhi High Court judge. The Supreme Court collegium, headed by the CJI, had recommended the transfer in February this year but the decision is yet to be given effect. It is learnt that the file is with the Prime Minister’s Office, and the Law Ministry is awaiting its return with specific instructions.

Hearing a PIL on issues of judicial appointments and shortage of judges, a bench led by the CJI had on August 12 asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi what had held up the transfer, and warned that the judge’s judicial work may be withdrawn if the government did not move him out.