1993 VERDICT BINDING IF A JUDGE’S APPOINTMENT REITERATED UNANIMOUSLY WITH REASONS

1993 VERDICT BINDING IF A JUDGE’S APPOINTMENT REITERATED UNANIMOUSLY WITH REASONS

From Our Bureau

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court collegium insists that the 1993 judgment by a 9-judge Constitution Bench in the second judges case is binding on the government if it reiterates the recommendation unanimously with reason, leaving no choice to the government but to accept it.

This happening not second but for the thyird time in case the SC collegium comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul adn K M Joseph again recommending the name of advocate Nagendra Ramachandran Naik as a judge of the Karnataka High Court.

His name was first recommended in 2019 and then in 2021 despite objections from the government. There has been a conflict going on between the collegium and the government on the appoitment of judges for various reasons.

The government refuses the absolute powers bestowed by the judges, holding no accountability to the citizens of India. It says this is not healthy for democracy.

All eyes are now fixed on how the government reacts to the collegium’s resolution on January 10 for appointment of advocate Naik as a judge in the Karnagtaka High Court, along with elevation of two in the same High Court, advocate Neela Kedar Gokhale as the judge of the Bombay High Court, besides two appointments of judges in Andhra Padesh High Court, a judge in Gauhati HC, and two in Manipur HC.