The Supreme Court Collegium on Tuesday changed its proposal of July 11 regarding the appointment of Chief Justices of Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts. It is reported that the Collegium has reconsidered the decision after considering a special point in the ‘sensitive information’ received from the government.
The collegium headed by CJI i.e. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also includes Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice BR Gavai. He has made changes in many of his earlier recommendations. The collegium had recommended names for the appointment of Chief Justices of seven High Courts – Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras and Meghalaya.
Meanwhile, the collegium decided to modify its recommendations regarding the appointment of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Tashi Rabstan.
Justice Kait, a senior judge of the Delhi High Court, was earlier recommended for appointment as the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. Now he has been recommended to be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Collegium had earlier recommended Justice Sandhawalia to be appointed as the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Now he has been recommended to be appointed as the Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Justice Tashi Rabstan was recommended to be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court. The Collegium has now recommended him to be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
The collegium said the present proposal will not affect the recommendations made on July 11 in respect of Justice Manmohan, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Justice Nitin Madhukar Jamdar and Justice K R Sriram.
Last week, Attorney General R Venkataramani told a bench headed by the CJI that he had some material to justify the delay in the appointment of Chief Justices in 7 High Courts. He said that the material was sensitive and asked to keep it in a sealed envelope.
(With agency input)
