Monday, 30th October 2017

E- paper

Supreme Court modifies decision on judge

On August 28, the court said it had received a government communication on the recommendation

By PTI in New Delhi
  • Published 22.09.19, 2:13 AM
  • Updated 22.09.19, 12:08 PM
  • a min read
  •  
“The said (May 10) recommendation sent to the government has been referred back to the Chief Justice of India vide two communications dated 23rd August, 2019, and 27th August, 2019, received along with accompanying material,” a collegium resolution uploaded on the apex court’s website said. Shutterstock

The Supreme Court collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice Akil Kureshi as chief justice of Tripura High Court, modifying a May 10 recommendation to appoint him the Madhya Pradesh chief justice following the Centre’s reservations.

Earlier, commenting on the Centre’s delay in implementing the May 10 recommendation, Gujarat High Court Advocates Association president Yatin Oza had reportedly highlighted that Justice Kureshi had in 2010 remanded current Union home minister Amit Shah in police custody in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

“The said (May 10) recommendation sent to the government has been referred back to the Chief Justice of India vide two communications dated 23rd August, 2019, and 27th August, 2019, received along with accompanying material,” a collegium resolution uploaded on the apex court’s website late on Friday evening said.

The collegium resolution added: “On reconsideration… the collegium resolves to reiterate its earlier recommendation dated 10th May, 2019, with the modification that Mr Justice A.A. Kureshi be appointed as chief justice of Tripura High Court.”

In July, the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association had moved a petition saying the Centre’s inaction on the May 10 recommendation was an attack on the judiciary's independence.

It highlighted that the government had on June 7 appointed Justice Ravi Shanker Jha as acting chief justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. It argued the Centre’s move violated the memorandum of procedure guiding judicial appointments as well as Articles 14 (equality) and 217 (judges' appointments) of the Constitution.