- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Centre's Response to Collegium Recommendations
Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Centre's Response to Collegium Recommendations
The Supreme Court stated its concern over the way the Central Government was responding to the recommendations of Supreme Court collegium for appointment/transfer of judges to High Courts and the Apex Court.
The three judges bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar observed that certain issues pertaining to judge's appointments were concerning.
Justice Kaul verbally asserted, "I am also concerned with some issues."
Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said the Centre has been selective in notifying the appointment/transfer of certain judges. "We are equally worried if not more," Justice Kaul added.
The progress took place during the resumed hearing of a petition filed by the Advocates Association Bengaluru. The petitioner argued that the Centre was in direct contravention of the 'Second Judges case' for not appointing names cleared by the collegium.
Previously, the bench on hearings has expressed its strong discontentment over the delay in the government clearing judicial appointments and transfers. The Apex Court had on 3rd February warned the government of judicial and administrative actions that "may not be palatable" in case it kept dragging its feet in acting on the recommendations of the collegium on the transfer of high court judges.