Madras HC’s list for new judges ‘fundamentally flawed’, says PIL

CHENNAI: Days after Madras high court recommended the names of 13 advocates for appointment as judges of the court, a public interest writ petition has been filed questioning the legality and constitutionality of the collegium which shortlisted and made the recommendations.In his PIL, A Prem Kumar said the HC collegium comprises the chief justice and the two seniormost puisne judges of the court. Until Dec 19, along with the incumbent Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice R Suresh Kumar, Justice J Nisha Banu was also part of the collegium as she was the second seniormost puisne judge in Madras high court.Though she was transferred to Kerala high court through a notification dated Oct 14, she continued to be a member of the Madras high court collegium since she did not assume charge in the transferee court until Dec 19, he said.While so, the recommendation of 13 lawyers was made by a collegium comprising the Chief Justice, Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice M S Ramesh, excluding Justice Nisha Banu, which is fundamentally flawed, he said. The petitioner added that the chief justice should not have proceeded with the recommendation by including Justice Ramesh, as Justice Nisha Banu had not joined Kerala high court until Dec 19.A fresh notification was issued instructing Justice Nisha Banu to join Kerala HC by Dec 20.

This proves that Justice Nisha Banu continued as the second seniormost puisne judge of Madras HC when the recommendations were made without including her in the collegium, the petitioner said. “The process of judicial appointments to a superior court is not a prerogative of a single individual. Instead, it is a collaborative and participatory process involving all collegium members,” he said.Therefore, the exclusion of Justice Nisha Banu from the collegium that made the recommendation is contrary to law and established procedures. He further alleged that the entire list of advocates recommended is backed by strong political interference.He wanted the court to pass an interim order restraining the central govt from accepting the recommendation and direct the registrar (judicial) of the high court to reconsider the recommendations.