Supreme Court: Loka Prahari Plea for MoP, Judge Appointment RTI

• An NGO, Loka Prahari, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking the finalization of the Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments.
• The petition also requests that decisions made by the Supreme Court Collegium be subjected to the Right to Information Act.
• During a recent hearing, Justice PS Narasimha recused himself due to his prior involvement in a similar case concerning the MoP.
• The initial Memorandum of Procedure was drafted in June 1999, following directions from the Supreme Court in the Second Judges case.
• In 2015, Parliament enacted the NJAC Act to replace the Collegium system, but this legislation was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court.

Lawyers should closely monitor the progress of this petition as its outcome could significantly alter the process for judicial appointments in India, potentially impacting the composition and independence of the higher judiciary.

An NGO named Loka Prahari has recently approached the Supreme Court of India, filing a petition that seeks crucial directives concerning the appointment of judges to both High Courts and the apex court. The primary objective of this legal challenge is to compel the Chief Justice of India and the Central government to finalize the long-pending Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which outlines the detailed process for these significant judicial appointments. Furthermore, the petition advocates for a substantial increase in transparency by demanding that the decisions made by the Supreme Court Collegium be brought within the ambit of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).

The NGO's plea emphasizes that judicial appointments to constitutional courts should strictly adhere to a unanimous consensus within the Collegium. This consensus, according to the petition, must also incorporate specific considerations detailed in the Supreme Court's landmark 2015 judgment concerning the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case. When the matter was brought before a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, a notable development occurred: Justice Narasimha elected to recuse himself from the proceedings. His decision stemmed from his prior professional involvement as an Additional Solicitor General in a similar case that also pertained to the Memorandum of Procedure, citing a potential conflict of interest.

The concept of a formalized Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments is not new; its initial draft emerged in June 1999. This original MoP was a direct consequence of directives issued by the Supreme Court itself, specifically following its pronouncements in the Second Judges case. Its fundamental purpose was to establish a clear, structured procedure to be followed under the Collegium system, governing the selection and appointment of judges to India's higher judiciary. This framework has since been the subject of ongoing debate and attempts at reform.

A significant legislative effort to alter this system occurred in 2015 when the Indian Parliament enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act. This legislation represented a concerted move to fundamentally change the mechanism for judicial appointments. The NJAC Act proposed to dismantle the existing Collegium system, replacing it with a new body designed to include representatives from both the judiciary and the Central government. This proposed commission was intended to be responsible for making recommendations for judicial appointments, thereby introducing a greater executive role in the selection process. However, the Supreme Court ultimately struck down the NJAC Act, reaffirming the Collegium system.

The current Supreme Court plea regarding the MoP and judge appointment RTI underscores a persistent demand for greater clarity and openness in India's judicial selection process. The finalization of the Memorandum of Procedure is seen as crucial for establishing a definitive and transparent framework for appointments, potentially reducing ambiguities and enhancing public trust in the system. Lawyers should closely monitor the progress of this petition as its outcome could significantly alter the process for judicial appointments in India, potentially impacting the composition and independence of the higher judiciary.

Moreover, the petition's call to bring Collegium decisions under the Right to Information Act represents a pivotal move towards enhanced accountability. If successful, this would mean that the deliberations and reasons behind judicial appointments, currently largely opaque, would become accessible to public scrutiny. This increased transparency could be a significant factor in future legal challenges or public interest litigation concerning judicial appointments or broader governance issues. The emphasis on adhering to the unanimous view of the Collegium and the criteria from the 2015 NJAC case judgment further highlights the desire for a principled and well-reasoned approach to selecting judges.

Lawyers should closely monitor the progress of this petition as its outcome could significantly alter the process for judicial appointments in India, potentially impacting the composition and independence of the higher judiciary. Furthermore, if Collegium decisions are brought under the RTI Act, it would introduce greater transparency into judicial selections, which could be a factor in future litigation concerning judicial appointments or public interest matters.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets