CHENNAI: A PIL has questioned the acceptability of the latest list of 12 names recommended by thecollegium of judges in the Madras high court for appointment as additional judges of the court.
The PIL, filed by senior advocate R Gandhi, came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash on Monday.
S Prabakaran, counsel for the PIL-petitioner, told the bench that the list was faulty on two grounds - one, it has overlooked competent and meritorious lawyers from communities which remain unrepresented in the judiciary; two, only a few communities have been 'over-represented'. Some of the candidates in the list do not even have proper practice and court appearance, he said, adding that another candidate was prosecuted for a serious offence before the case was quashed by the high court.
The high court at present has 47 judges, as against the sanctioned strength of 60. Last month, the collegium comprising three seniormost judges in the court is said to have shortlisted 12 names and forwarded it to the Supreme Court for appointment as additional judges.
Assailing the secrecy surrounding the selection process, Prabakaran said competent lawyers from unrepresented communities could not make it to the list because their cases were not brought up before the collegium in which two of the three judges do not belong to Tamil Nadu. As they were transferred from other high courts only recently, they did not understand the social composition in the state, he said, adding that the list should be redrawn.
The judges, pointing out that the allegations of nepotism and favouritism were general and vague in the PIL, said the PIL did not contain any names said to have been recommended for appointment as judges, and that it did not specify as to which were the communities remaining unrepresented in the judiciary. Making it clear that they were not suggesting inclusion of such details, the bench said an affidavit should be specific.
Print Page
The PIL, filed by senior advocate R Gandhi, came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash on Monday.
S Prabakaran, counsel for the PIL-petitioner, told the bench that the list was faulty on two grounds - one, it has overlooked competent and meritorious lawyers from communities which remain unrepresented in the judiciary; two, only a few communities have been 'over-represented'. Some of the candidates in the list do not even have proper practice and court appearance, he said, adding that another candidate was prosecuted for a serious offence before the case was quashed by the high court.
The high court at present has 47 judges, as against the sanctioned strength of 60. Last month, the collegium comprising three seniormost judges in the court is said to have shortlisted 12 names and forwarded it to the Supreme Court for appointment as additional judges.
Assailing the secrecy surrounding the selection process, Prabakaran said competent lawyers from unrepresented communities could not make it to the list because their cases were not brought up before the collegium in which two of the three judges do not belong to Tamil Nadu. As they were transferred from other high courts only recently, they did not understand the social composition in the state, he said, adding that the list should be redrawn.
The judges, pointing out that the allegations of nepotism and favouritism were general and vague in the PIL, said the PIL did not contain any names said to have been recommended for appointment as judges, and that it did not specify as to which were the communities remaining unrepresented in the judiciary. Making it clear that they were not suggesting inclusion of such details, the bench said an affidavit should be specific.
No comments:
Post a Comment