Cracks in collegium system as Kerala HC sent two separate lists to Supreme Court after failing to reach consensus

The Kerala High Court sent two different lists of judicial officers to the Supreme Court collegium for appointment as High Court judges. The unprecedented development came due to a difference of opinion between the High Court collegium’s members, The Hindu reported.

The High Court collegium comprises of the three senior-most judges of the Court, namely Chief Justice S Manikumar, Justices SV Bhatti and K Vinod Chandran. According to the report, Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Bhatti concurred and sent a list accordingly, however, Justice Chandran sent a different list while marking his dissent on one judicial officer recommended in the other list.

Chief Justice Manikumar and Justice Bhatti recommended PJ Vincent, MB Snehalatha, C Krishnakumar, G Girish, Johnson John, C Pratheep Kumar, and P Krishnakumar, whereas Justice Chandran recommended P Krishnakumar, KV Jayakumar, MB Snehalatha, Johnson John, G Girish, C Pratheep Kumar and P Saidalavi for elevation, The Hindu reported.

The High Court concurred on the names of MB Snehalatha, G Girish, Johnson John, P Krishnakumar and C Pratheep Kumar for elevation. Furthermore, Justice Chandran recorded his dissent to PJ Vincent’s elevation, The Hindu reported. It is pertinent to note that Justice Vinod Chandran was transferred and appointed as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.

The Collegium’s Criticism

On October 17, 2022, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said, “The Constitution is the most sacred document. We have three pillars including legislature, executive and judiciary… I feel the executive and legislature are bound in their duties and the judiciary improves them. But the issue is that when the judiciary goes astray, there is no system to improve them,” while speaking at an event organised by Panchjanya Weekly.

“Till 1993, judges were appointed by the government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. At that time we had very eminent judges. After 1993, the Supreme court defined the ‘consultation’ as concurrence. In no other field, consultation has been defined as concurrence but in judicial appointments,” he added.

He said as per the spirit of the Constitution, appointing judges is the job of the government.
Kiren Rijiju said, “Supreme Court expanded the collegium system in 1998. Nowhere in the world judges make appointments of judges. The primary duty of judges is the delivery of justice.” Furthermore, he said that he has observed that half the time judges are busy deciding appointments, thereby affecting their primary job of “delivering justice”.

“Now I have observed that more than half of the time, judges spend time in appointing judges instead of delivering justice. The internal politics of the Judiciary is not seen from the outside. There are intense deliberations. Sometimes even groupism also happens. The procedure is very opaque, and not transparent. If judges play the executive role, then it would be reviewed,” he said.