A fresh controversy has erupted over judicial appointments at the Madras High Court. A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed, challenging the very legality and constitutionality of the collegium that recently recommended 13 advocates for appointment as judges of the court.
Core of the Petition: An Alleged Flawed Composition
The writ petition, filed by A Prem Kumar, zeroes in on the composition of the high court collegium. According to established norms, the Madras High Court collegium comprises the chief justice and the two seniormost puisne judges of the court. Until December 19, this body consisted of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Justice R Suresh Kumar, and Justice J Nisha Banu.
The petitioner points out a critical detail. Although Justice Nisha Banu was transferred to the Kerala High Court via a notification dated October 14, she continued to be a member of the Madras High Court collegium. This was because she had not assumed charge at the transferee court until December 19.
The Alleged Irregularity in the Recommendation Process
Despite this, the recommendation of the 13 lawyers was made by a collegium that included Chief Justice Shrivastava, Justice Suresh Kumar, and Justice M S Ramesh, thereby excluding Justice Nisha Banu. The PIL argues this composition is fundamentally flawed and contrary to law.
"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," the petitioner stated. He contends that the Chief Justice should not have proceeded with the recommendations by including Justice Ramesh while Justice Banu was still technically the second seniormost puisne judge in Madras.
Notification as Proof and Further Allegations
The petition cites a fresh notification instructing Justice Nisha Banu to join the Kerala High Court by December 20 as proof that she was still a judge of the Madras HC when the recommendations were finalized without her. This, according to the petitioner, violates established procedures.
Making a serious additional claim, the petitioner has alleged that the entire list of recommended advocates is backed by strong political interference. This casts a shadow over the impartiality of the selection process.
Relief Sought from the Court
In light of these allegations, the PIL seeks specific judicial intervention. The petitioner wants the court to pass an interim order restraining the central government from accepting the controversial recommendations. Furthermore, he has requested the court to direct the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to reconsider the recommendations through a properly constituted collegium.
This legal challenge throws a spotlight on the often-opaque collegium system and underscores the critical importance of adhering strictly to procedural norms in the sensitive process of appointing judges to the higher judiciary.
