SC Collegium rejects inputs of RAW and IB against the selected persons
The Supreme Court Collegium reiterated its recommendation for appointing five judges, rejecting the intelligence agencies’ reports against them. The persons reiterated were Saurabh Kirpal for Delhi High Court, R John Sathyan for Madras High Court, Somasekhar Sundaresan for Mumbai High Court, Amitesh Banerjee and Sakya Sen for Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph rejected RAW’s inputs against Saurabh Kirpal citing his gay sexual orientation, Intelligence Bureau inputs against John Sathyan, Somasekhar Sundaresan for critical posts in social media against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and asked Centre to expedite the five advocates appointments to High Courts as Judges.
In a detailed four letters for the reiteration of the five-person appointment, as Judges, uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website on Thursday, the Collegium totally rejected the inputs of RAW and IB against the persons selected. The Collegium said that rejecting Kirpal based on the RAW report on his sexual preferences is against constitutional principles on equality.
“The recommendation unanimously made by the Collegium of the Delhi High Court on October 13, 2017, and approved by the Supreme Court Collegium on November 11, 2021, has been referred back to us on November 25, 2022, for reconsideration in light of the observations made in the file,” said the Collegium statement.
“From the letters of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) dated April 11, 2019, and March 18, 2021, it appears that there are two objections to the recommendation which was made by the Collegium of this court on November 11, 2021, approving the name of Shri Saurabh Kirpal namely: (i) the partner of Shri Saurabh Kirpal is a Swiss national, and (ii) he is in an intimate relationship and is open about his sexual orientation,” the statement said, went on lauding Kirpal for being open about his sexual orientation, saying it “goes to his credit” that he has not been surreptitious about it.
“In this backdrop, the Collegium resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 11 November 2021 for the appointment of Shri Saurabh Kirpal as a Judge of the Delhi High Court which needs to be processed expeditiously,” said the last paragraph of the statement of Collegium. Saurabh Kirpal is the son of former Chief Justice of India B N Kirpal.
The Collegium rejected the IB report citing the social media posts of John Sathyan, critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and said that the rejection is against the freedom of speech and expression. The statement of the Collegium reproduced the IB report against Sathyan. “As per open sources, two posts made by him, i.e. sharing of an article published in ‘The Quint’, which was critical of the
Prime Minister, Narendra Modi; and another post regarding committing of suicide by medical aspirant Anitha, who ended her life in 2017 since she was unable to clear NEET, portraying it as a killing by ‘political betrayal’ and a tag stating ‘shame of you India’ came to notice,” said the IB note reproduced in the Collegium statement.
“The Intelligence Bureau has reported that he enjoys a good personal and professional image and that nothing adverse has come to notice against his integrity. Shri Sathyan belongs to the Christian community. The IB report notes that he does not have any overt political leanings. In this backdrop, the adverse comments of the IB extracted above in respect of posts made by him i.e. sharing an article published in ‘The Quint’ and another post regarding committing suicide by a medical aspirant candidate in 2017 will not impinge on the suitability, character or integrity of Shri Sathyan,” said Collegium reiterating its recommendation.
The Collegium also rejected the IB inputs against Somasekhar Sundaresan, citing his social media posts and terming him as a biased person. “Having considered the objection to the candidature of Shri Somasekhar Sundaresan, the Collegium is of the view that the views on social media attributed to the candidate, do not furnish any foundation to infer that he is biased. The issues on which opinions have been attributed to the candidate are in the public domain and have been extensively deliberated upon in the print and electronic media.
“All citizens have the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office so long as the person proposed for a judgeship is a person of competence, merit, and integrity,” said the Collegium, terming Somasekhar Sundaresan being specialized in commercial law would be an asset to Bombay High Court.
This is the second reiteration of Amitesh Banerjee and Sakya Sen for Calcutta High Court. Amitesh Banerjee’s father was former Supreme Court Justice U C Banerjee, who was appointed in 2006 by Railways to head a Commission to probe the 2002 Godhra train burning that led to the death of 58 Karsevaks. Justice Banerjee’s finding was controversial by saying the train burning was due to an accidental fire. The Collegium found no merit in the IB reports against Amitesh Banerjee and Sakya Sen. “The inputs which have been furnished by the Department of Justice in the file on 25 November 2022 do not contain any fresh material or ground. Moreover, after the Supreme Court Collegium reiterated the proposal on 01 September 2021, it was not open to the Department to repeatedly send back the same proposal which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium after duly considering the objections of the government,” said the Collegium reiterating the appoint of Amitesh Banerjee and Sakya Sen for Calcutta High Court Judges.
PGurus is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with all the latest news and views
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Prime Minister Narendra Modi: A Gujju businessman who does not invest his precious time for a losing battle - April 13, 2024
- NIA arrests two accused Shazib and Taahaa in Bengaluru’s Rameshwaram Cafe blast case from Kolkata - April 12, 2024
- National Herald scam: Adjudicating Authority upholds Rs.752 crore assets attached by ED - April 11, 2024
Indian Judiciary has become a dynastic business. I wonder what does it take break the this cabal. I cannot believe SC is incapable of finding few non-controversial judges. Or it doesn’t want, since it is time to return the favor?
Not being able to find and identify say 500 qualified people of unquestionable integrity acceptable to judiciary and government, in a population of 140 Cr. shows the bankruptcy of search process and or clear biases. Does the judicial wisdom come only down the blood lines? This issue has be resolved without further delay, all the corrupt administrations of the past riddled with multiple vested interests were incapable of red flagging the capture which is being protected tooth and nail.
SC is at fault in this case. Criticism against govt is ok, so long it is coming from person of integrity. Who defines integrity ?
But criticism of SC or its judgements, is unpardonable according to Supreme Court