To tackle nepotism, bad appointments by collegiums, rigorous selection a must: Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan

The ongoing tussle between the judiciary and executive over judicial appointments has taken several turns in the past few weeks. When the government returned the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph for reconsideration, it was an indication of the ensuing clash between the government and judiciary.

While the matter is still under debate on whether the Centre's decision to return Justice Joseph's name amounts to "unacceptable intervention" by the executive, the government's message was clear €" it was in no mood to cede ground.

This the Centre indicated by raising the issue of nepotism in judicial appointments. Earlier this year, it had pointed out that at least 11 of the 33 names the Allahabad High Court Collegium had recommended for elevations in February were advocates with links to sitting and retired judges.

However, after the collegium reiterated Justice Joseph's name for elevation to the Supreme Court and the Centre consented to his appointment, it seemed that an amicable solution could be on the anvil.

But now, the new row triggered by the Centre indicates that the fight is far from over. The government notification released on Saturday, which confirmed the appointment of three high court judges to the top court, placed Justice Joseph's name in the third spot below justices Indira Banerjee and Vineet Saran.

Every intervention by the Centre has been touted as an attack on the independence of the judiciary. However, the working of the collegium itself has attracted severe criticism from various quarters, and the issue of nepotism in judges' appointments has critically dented the image of the higher judiciary.

On these concerns, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan said nepotism was a reality in judicial appointments, and the way to address the problem was to add more rigour to the selection process.

"There is nepotism in judicial appointments. Many worthless people have entered high courts and the Supreme Court," he said. "The only answer to such nepotism is a rigorous process at both collegiums (high courts and Supreme Court).

Referring to the 2013 case of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the collegium's recommendation of eight advocates for elevation had attracted strong criticism for promoting nepotism, Dhavan said: "In the Punjab and Haryana High Court case, there was an uproar, and lawyers and others protested. Collegiums should not be blind to such criticism. Maybe when there is a balanced National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) unlike the last one, then more rigour can be added to this process."

However, he pointed out that "after the KM Joseph affair, one is very suspicious about any veto the government exercises".

Read more...