Monday, 30th October 2017

E- paper

SC iterates HC judge name

It is now incumbent upon the Union government to appoint Anriuddha Roy as the high court judge

By Our Legal Correspondent in New Delhi
  • Published 1.02.20, 1:25 AM
  • Updated 1.02.20, 1:25 AM
  • a min read
  •  
The Supreme Court collegium had recommended Anriuddha Roy ’s name for the high court justice’s post on October 24, 2018 (Shutterstock)

The Supreme Court collegium has rejected the central government’s plea to reconsider the recommendation to appoint advocate Anriuddha Roy as a judge of Calcutta High Court and reiterated his name for the post.

The collegium had recommended Roy’s name for the high court justice’s post on October 24, 2018. However, the Centre is understood to have sought the reconsideration of his name.

At its meeting held on January 29, the collegium comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and two senior most judges, Justices N.V. Ramana and Arun Mishra, reiterated the decision. It is now incumbent upon the Union government to appoint Roy as the high court judge.

“The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 29 th January, 2020 has resolved to reiterate its recommendation dated 24th October, 2018 for appointment of Shri Aniruddha Roy, Advocate, as Judge of the Calcutta High Court,” a terse resolution adopted by the collegium on Friday said.

The collegium further approved the appointment of advocates T.R. Ravi, Bechu Kurian Thomas and Gopinath P. as judges of Kerala High Court.

Notice to Bengal

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Bengal government’s response to a plea seeking a review of its January 6 judgment that upheld the state’s power to appoint teachers at aided madarsas. A bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices Bhushan Gavai and Surya Kant issued the notice to the state on the petition filed by Contai Rahmania High Madrasah.

The plea challenged the two-judge bench ruling on January 6 on the issue.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan who appeared for the petitioner assailed the January 6 order on the ground that it had not properly interpreted the 2002 ruling by a 11-judge bench ruling in the TMA Pai case which, according to him, had said there could be no interference in the affairs of minority institutions by the State.

On January 6, the court had upheld the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, which empowered the panel to appoint/recommend teachers to aided madarsas.