Delay in final MoP piles up judicial vacancies

New Delhi: Differences persist between the Central government and the Supreme Court collegium on the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) relating to judicial appointments.

As a result, MoP is yet to be finalised for over two years after the apex court quashed the National Jud-icial Appointments Com-mission Act relating to appointments in higher judiciary. In December 2015, the court empowered the Central government to come out with a revised MoP. 

The government has suggested modification and improvement in the draft MoP, particularly after the Supreme Court sent Justice C.S. Karnan, former Judge of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts to jail for contempt of court.

Minister of state for law P.P. Chaudhar last week informed Parliament that the government had sent a communication to the secretary-general of the Supreme Court and was yet to get any response.

The minister had said in the judgment the court had expressed the need for a proper vetting mechanism for appointments to the higher judiciary. 

It is now upto the collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to sort out the differences and allow finalisation of the MoP to pave way for expeditious filling up of about 400 vacancies in High Courts and the delay in filling up vacancies has resulted in accumulation of arrears.

At present there are six vacancies in the Supreme Court and this year seven more judges are to retire. They are the CJI Dipak Misra and three senior judges in the collegium--Justices J Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph, besides Justices Amitava Roy, R.K. Agrawal and A.K. Goel.

If steps are not taken immediately to fill up the existing vacancies, it will result in the accumulation of arrears in the top court as well.

According to sources in the judiciary, the content-ious issue of ‘veto power’ to the Centre to reject a candidate on grounds of national security has been sorted out. The collegium has given liberty to the government to reject any name on grounds of national security after giving reasons in writing but the final power to reject or approve the name will continue to rem-ain with the collegium.

The collegium is not in favour of setting up an independent secretariat to screen names of judges for appointment as it prefers the existing setup.