SC Slams Centre for Delays in Judicial Appointments: A Wake-Up Call for the Executive
- ByAdmin --
- 14 Apr 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a rare but firm rebuke to the executive, the Supreme Court of India recently criticized the central government for long and unexplained delays in approving judicial appointments, calling the practice a “direct threat to judicial independence and constitutional balance.”
The ruling, delivered in January 2025, came as the Court dealt with multiple petitions challenging the government’s inaction on over 30 recommendations made by the Collegium, some of which had been pending for more than 10 months. These included names cleared for High Court judgeships, several of whom were from marginalized communities, women, and even sitting district judges with stellar records.
The Court’s strong words mark an important moment in the ongoing conversation around the Collegium system, separation of powers, and the health of India’s justice system.
The Flashpoint: Collegium Recommendations Ignored
The issue had been brewing for years. Under the current system, judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts are made by the President of India, acting on the advice of the Collegium — a group of the senior-most judges led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
While the executive can return recommendations once for reconsideration, a reiteration by the Collegium makes it binding. Yet, the Centre has repeatedly delayed notifications, often without explanation or action.
In 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended a list of 34 appointments to various High Courts. By January 2025, only 12 had been processed. The rest — some pending for nearly a year — remained in limbo.
The petitioners argued that this amounted to constitutional violation and was crippling the judiciary’s ability to deliver timely justice.
What the Supreme Court Said
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah minced no words:
“The deliberate delay in clearing Collegium recommendations after reiteration strikes at the very core of judicial independence.”
The Court made three major observations:
- Timeframe Matters: The government must respond within 60 days of receiving Collegium recommendations. Reiteration must be cleared without delay.
- No Veto Power: The executive does not have an indefinite power to sit on names. Its role is advisory, not discretionary.
- Constitutional Balance: The delay was a violation of the basic structure doctrine, which guarantees separation of powers between the executive and judiciary.
Justice Amanullah noted:
“Delays in appointments are not just administrative; they are constitutional failures with real human costs — delayed trials, overburdened courts, and justice denied.”
Real-World Impact: Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
The consequences of this delay are stark:
- Over 30% of High Court judgeships are vacant, leading to massive case backlogs
- Courts are functioning with reduced benches, affecting hearings of critical matters
- Litigants, especially the poor, are waiting years for simple rulings
- Several deserving candidates — especially women, Dalits, and regional jurists — are left in uncertainty, despite unanimous Collegium approval
Legal experts say this amounts to indirect control over the judiciary, which is unconstitutional and unsustainable in a democracy.
Centre’s Response: Silence and Ambiguity
The government’s legal representatives offered no substantive defense. In earlier affidavits, the Centre had cited “administrative processes,” “security clearance,” and “ongoing review” — but the Court found these reasons vague and insufficient.
The lack of transparency has prompted legal scholars to demand:
- Time-bound appointment processes
- Clear disclosure of reasons for rejection
- A review of the MHA’s role in vetting candidates
The Larger Battle: Collegium vs. Executive
This judgment reopens a long-standing tension between the judiciary and the government over who controls judicial appointments.
- The NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) Act, passed in 2015 to give the executive more say, was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
- Since then, the Collegium system remains, but the Centre’s passive resistance — through delays and silence — has been a form of quiet pushback.
The current verdict reinforces that stalling is not a legitimate form of disagreement. The executive must either accept, reject with reasons, or follow process — not simply ignore.
Public and Legal Community Reaction
The verdict was widely welcomed by:
- Former judges, who called it “a much-needed correction”
- Bar associations, which said they’d “lost faith in the appointment process”
- Civil society, which feared politicization of the judiciary
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising noted:
“If judges cannot be appointed on merit and in time, the people will suffer. And that is unacceptable in a constitutional democracy.”
The Road Ahead
The Court has now directed the Union Government to:
- Clear all pending appointments within 30 days
- Avoid “selective approvals” — i.e., approving some names while ignoring others
- Ensure future Collegium recommendations are processed within 2 months
If this is not followed, the Court warned that it may be forced to invoke its powers under Article 142 to ensure compliance — a rarely used but powerful constitutional tool.
A Crucial Judgment for Judicial Independence
This ruling is not just about process. It is a reminder that the judiciary cannot function effectively if its benches remain empty, its recommendations ignored, and its authority undermined.
By slamming the Centre for delays in judicial appointments, the Supreme Court has taken a stand for efficiency, fairness, and the independence of the third pillar of Indian democracy.
In the words of Chief Justice Chandrachud:
“Justice cannot be done in silence. It must be appointed, heard, and delivered — on time, and without interference.”
RELATED Blog
0 comments