SC collegium overrules IB input on candidates

MERIT BEST judged by higher judiciary, says collegium

Professional competence of those being considered for appointment as judges can best be determined by the members of the higher judiciary and not by the Intelligence Bureau, the Supreme Court collegium has said.

The apex court collegium, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, has said this while recommending the names of three of the four advocates for appointment as judges of the Jharkhand High Court. The court has in these case overruled the comments of the IB about their professional competence. The collegium also found the allegations against advocate Arindam Lodh, who has been recommended for appointment as judge of the Tripura high court, uncorroborated.

"As regards comments of Intelligence Bureau about professional competence...we are of the view that professional competence can best be determined by the members of the higher judiciary who have the opportunity to observe the candidate’s performance on a daily basis," the collegium, which also comprised Justices J Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi, said.

"As regards comments touching upon his integrity, the same are qualified by Intelligence Bureau's own statement that 'there is nothing on record'. In our view, it would not be appropriate to take cognisance of any unsubstantiated information based on discreet inquiries made by the Intelligence Bureau," the collegium said.

Making a distinction between professional acumen of the appointees and their integrity, the collegium made it clear that it would consider the IB’s inputs only with regard to the latter, and only if it is corroborated with material evidence.

The collegium found that one of the candidates practicing as an advocate -- Pankaj Kumar, who was recommended for appointment as a judge by the collegium of the Jharkhand high court -- was not suitable for elevation to the bench, having regard to the material placed on record, “including the revised income criterion and his association/links with many over ground front organisations”.

The Supreme Court collegium has also recorded its reasons for disagreeing with the collegium of the Gauwhati high court on the elevation of three of its additional judges, whose terms are about to expire.