NEW DELHI: The Centre has notified the appointment of three advocates as Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court even as it has chosen to ignore, at least for now, an older recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium to elevate advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan who has been critical of the government’s policies.
“In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 224 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint S/Shri (i) Shailesh Pramod Brahme, (ii) Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla and (iii) Jitendra Shantilal Jain as Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court for a period of two years, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices,” read an official notification issued on Monday.
Overruling the Intelligence Bureau’s objections, the Supreme Court Collegium led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had on May 2 recommended Pooniwalla to be appointed as a judge of the Bombay High Court.
The Collegium which also included Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph had also recommended the names of Brahme and Jain for appointment as judges of the Bombay High Court on the same day.
The IB had objected to the candidature of Pooniwalla for an article written in 2020 by an advocate under whom Pooniwalla used to work as a junior expressing concerns over alleged lack of freedom of speech/expression in India in the last five-six years.
However, the Collegium in its resolution noted that the views expressed by a former senior of Pooniwalla had no bearing on his own competence, ability or credentials for appointment as a high court judge.
However, the Government chose to ignore, at least for now, the Collegium’s recommendation for appointment of advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Sundaresan had invited an adverse report from the Intelligence Bureau for being “selectively critical on social media on the important policies, initiatives and directions of the Government”.
But the Supreme Court Collegium had on January 18 reiterated its recommendation for Sundaresan’s elevation to the Bombay High Court, saying “Expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office so long as the person proposed for judgeship is a person of competence, merit and integrity.”